D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT QTECHNICAL REPORT
Community Impact Assessment Technical Report

September 2017
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail i Community Impact Assessment 

CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1-1

CHAPTER 2 – PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 2-3

2.1.1 Passenger Rail Service in Project Corridor ................................................................ 2-3 

2.1.2 Tier II EIS Planning Dates ............................................................................................ 2-4

2.2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................... 2-5

2.2.1 No Build Alternative .................................................................................................... 2-8

2.2.2 Build Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 2-8

2.2.2.1 Build Alternatives in Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) ......... 2-8 

2.2.2.2 Build Alternatives in Area 2: Northern Virginia ....................................... 2-9

2.2.2.3 Build Alternatives in Area 3: Fredericksburg ............................................. 2-9

2.2.2.4 Build Alternatives in Area 4: Central Virginia ......................................... 2-11

2.2.2.5 Build Alternatives in Area 5: Ashland ...................................................... 2-11

2.2.2.6 Build Alternatives in Area 6: Richmond ................................................... 2-13

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME ............................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................................................... 3-2

3.3 NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES ......................................................................... 3-4

3.3.1 Communities along the DC2RVA Corridor .............................................................. 3-4

3.3.2 Community Safety and Access ................................................................................... 3-5

3.3.3 Community Facilities and Services ............................................................................ 3-6

3.4 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ................................................................... 3-34

3.4.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 3-35

3.4.2 Title VI and Environmental Justice Populations .................................................... 3-35

CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................................... 4-1

4.1 ECONOMIC EFFECTS .............................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY EFFECTS ............................................................. 4-2

4.2.1 Community Effects ....................................................................................................... 4-2

4.2.2 Effects from Changes to the Transportation Network............................................. 4-4

4.2.3 Community Facilities and Services ............................................................................ 4-6
CONTENTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail ii Community Impact Assessment 

4.3 RIGHT-OF-WAY AND RELOCATIONS ............................................................................... 4-7

4.4.1 Corridor-Wide Impacts .............................................................................................. 4-11

4.4.2 Community-Level Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-11

4.12.2.1 Relocations and Displacements .................................................................. 4-11

4.12.2.2 Noise and Vibration ..................................................................................... 4-12

4.5 PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY ....................................................................................... 4-30

CHAPTER 5 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ........................................................................................... 5-1

CHAPTER 6 – MITIGATION ................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.1 ECONOMIC IMPACTS ............................................................................................................. 6-1

6.2 COMMUNITY COHESION ..................................................................................................... 6-1

6.3 RIGHT-OF-WAY AND RELOCATIONS ............................................................................... 6-1

6.4 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ..................................................................... 6-2

CHAPTER 7 – REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 7-1 

APPENDIX A – EXISTING LAND USE MAPS ................................................................................. A-1 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 2-1: Build Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 2-7

Table 2-2: Arlington Area Build Alternatives: 1A, 1B, and 1C ................................................... 2-8

Table 2-3: Northern Virginia Build Alternative 2A ..................................................................... 2-9

Table 2-4: Fredericksburg Area Build Alternative 3A ............................................................... 2-10

Table 2-5: Fredericksburg Area Build Alternative 3B ................................................................ 2-10

Table 2-6: Fredericksburg Area Build Alternative 3C ............................................................... 2-10

Table 2-7: Central Virginia area Build Alternative: 4A ............................................................. 2-11

Table 2-8: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5A and 5A–Ashcake ......................................... 2-12

Table 2-9: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5B and 5B–Ashcake ........................................... 2-12

Table 2-10: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5C and 5C–Ashcake .......................................... 2-13

Table 2-11: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5D–Ashcake ....................................................... 2-13

Table 2-12: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6A 

(Staples Mill Road Station Only) ................................................................................ 2-14

Table 2-13: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6B–A-Line 

(Boulevard Station Only) ............................................................................................. 2-14

Table 2-14: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6B–S-Line 

(Boulevard Station Only) ............................................................................................. 2-15

Table 2-15: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6C 

(Broad Street Station Only) ......................................................................................... 2-15

Table 2-16: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6D 

(Broad Street Station Only) ......................................................................................... 2-16

Table 2-17: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6E (Split Service) ................................. 2-16
CONTENTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail iii Community Impact Assessment 

Table 2-18: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6F (Full Service) .................................. 2-17

Table 2-19: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6G (Shared Service) ............................ 2-17

Table 3-1: Employment Patterns ..................................................................................................... 3-2

Table 3-2: Total Population Over Time .......................................................................................... 3-3

Table 3-3: Project Population Over Time....................................................................................... 3-3

Table 3-4: Community Facilities ................................................................................................... 3-34

Table 3-5: City/County Demographic Data in 2013 .................................................................. 3-36

Table 3-6: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 .................................................................. 3-37

Table 4-1: Commercial Relocations by Build Alternative ........................................................... 4-1

Table 4-2: Residential Relocations by Build Alternative ............................................................. 4-9

Table 4-3: Residential Relocations by Environmental Justice Census Tracts ......................... 4-13

Table 5-1: Summary of Impacts within Build Alternatives ........................................................ 5-1

Table 6-1: Community Cohesion Effects ....................................................................................... 6-2

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2-1: DC2RVA Project Corridor ............................................................................................. 2-2

Figure 2-2: Build Alternative Areas ................................................................................................. 2-6

Figure 2-3: Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C ..................................................................................... 2-18

Figure 2-4: Build Alternative 2A .................................................................................................... 2-19

Figure 2-5: Build Alternative 3A .................................................................................................... 2-20

Figure 2-6: Build Alternative 3B ..................................................................................................... 2-21

Figure 2-7: Build Alternative 3C ..................................................................................................... 2-22

Figure 2-8: Build Alternative 4A .................................................................................................... 2-23

Figure 2-9: Build Alternative 5A .................................................................................................... 2-24

Figure 2-10: Build Alternative 5A–Ashcake ................................................................................... 2-25

Figure 2-11: Build Alternative 5B ..................................................................................................... 2-26

Figure 2-12: Build Alternative 5B–Ashcake .................................................................................... 2-27

Figure 2-13: Build Alternative 5C ..................................................................................................... 2-28

Figure 2-14: Build Alternative 5C–Ashcake .................................................................................... 2-29

Figure 2-15: Build Alternative 5D–Ashcake ................................................................................... 2-30

Figure 2-16: Build Alternative 6A .................................................................................................... 2-31

Figure 2-17: Build Alternative 6B–A-Line ....................................................................................... 2-32

Figure 2-18: Build Alternative 6B–S-Line ........................................................................................ 2-33

Figure 2-19: Build Alternative 6C ..................................................................................................... 2-34

Figure 2-20: Build Alternative 6D .................................................................................................... 2-35

Figure 2-21: Build Alternative 6E ..................................................................................................... 2-36
CONTENTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail iv Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-22: Build Alternative 6F ..................................................................................................... 2-37

Figure 2-23: Build Alternative 6G .................................................................................................... 2-38

Figure 2-24: Alexandria Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A ................................. 2-39 

Figure 2-25: Woodbridge Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A ............................... 2-40 

Figure 2-26: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 3A and 3C ........... 2-41 

Figure 2-27: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternative 3B ........................... 2-42 

Figure 2-28A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C 

(Two-Track/850-Foot Platforms) ............................................................................... 2-43

Figure 2-28B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C 

(Two-Track/350-Foot Platforms) ............................................................................... 2-44 

Figure 2-29: Ashcake Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 

5B–Ashcake, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake ........................................................... 2-45

Figure 2-30A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B 

(Three-Track/850-Foot Platforms) ............................................................................. 2-46

Figure 2-30B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B 

(Three-Track/350-Foot Platforms) ............................................................................. 2-47

Figure 2-31: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6A ...................... 2-48

Figure 2-32: Boulevard Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 

6B–S-Line ....................................................................................................................... 2-49

Figure 2-33: Broad Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6C ................................ 2-50

Figure 2-34: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6D ................................. 2-51

Figure 2-35: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E ....................... 2-52

Figure 2-36: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E ................................. 2-53

Figure 2-37: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F ....................... 2-54

Figure 2-38: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F .................................. 2-55

Figure 2-39: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G ...................... 2-56

Figure 2-40: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G ................................. 2-57

Figure 3-1: Community Facilities ................................................................................................... 3-16

Figure 3-2: Environmental Justice Census Tracts ........................................................................ 3-44

Figure 4-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts ........................................................... 4-15
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 1-1 Community Impact Assessment 

INTRODUCTION 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation (DRPT) propose passenger rail service and rail infrastructure improvements in 

the north-south travel corridor between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA. These passenger 

rail service and rail infrastructure improvements are collectively known as the Washington, D.C. 

to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) project. The Project will increase capacity to 

deliver higher speed passenger rail, improve conventional speed passenger service, expand 

commuter rail, and accommodate growth of freight rail service, in an efficient and reliable 

multimodal rail corridor. The increased capacity will improve passenger rail service frequency, 

reliability and travel time in a corridor shared by growing volumes of passenger, commuter, and 

freight rail traffic, thereby providing a door-to-door time-competitive option for travelers 

between Washington, D.C. and Richmond and those traveling to and from adjacent connecting 

corridors. The Project is part of the larger Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) corridor, which 

extends from Washington, D.C. through Richmond, and continues east to Hampton Roads 

(Norfolk), VA, and south to Raleigh, NC, and Charlotte, NC, and then continues west to Atlanta, 

GA and south to Florida. The Project connects to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(Amtrak) Northeast Corridor (NEC) at Union Station in Washington, D.C. 

The purpose of the SEHSR program, as stated in the 2002 Tier I Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) completed for the full SEHSR corridor, is to provide a competitive transportation 

choice to travelers within the Washington, D.C. to Charlotte travel corridor. The current DC2RVA 

project carries forward the purpose of the SEHSR Tier I EIS within the Washington, D.C. to 

Richmond segment of the larger SEHSR corridor by identifying the infrastructure improvements 

necessary to provide a competitive transportation choice for current and future conditions. The 

Purpose of the DC2RVA project is to increase the capacity between Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond to deliver higher speed passenger rail, improve conventional speed passenger rail, 

expand commuter rail, and accommodate growth of freight rail service in an efficient and reliable 

multimodal rail corridor. This Project will enable passenger rail to be a competitive transportation 

choice for intercity travelers between Washington, D.C. and Richmond and beyond. 

The purpose of this Community Impact Assessment is to identify the social and economic aspects 

of the human/built environment along the DC2RVA corridor and analyze potential effects that 

could result from implementation of the build alternatives. Information in this Assessment 

supports discussions presented in the Draft EIS. 

1 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-1 Community Impact Assessment 

PROJECT OVERVIEW 

The Washington, D.C. to Richmond corridor spans 123 miles along an existing rail corridor owned 

by CSXT between Control Point Rosslyn (RO) at milepost (MP) CFP 110 in Arlington County, VA to 

the junction of the CSXT North End Subdivision (referred to as the A-Line) between West Acca Yard 

in Richmond and Centralia, VA, and the CSXT Bellwood Subdivision (referred to as the S-Line) 

between Control Point Hermitage in Richmond and Centralia, VA (CE) at MP A-11 in Chesterfield 

County, VA (Figure 2-1). At the northern terminus in Arlington County, the Project limit is marked 

by the southern approach to Long Bridge, a double-track rail bridge connecting the rail corridor over 

the Potomac River to Washington, D.C. The Project corridor follows the CSXT Richmond, 

Fredericksburg & Potomac (RF&P) Subdivision from the Potomac River to Richmond. The southern 

terminus in Centralia is the junction of two CSXT routes (the A-Line and the S-Line) that begin in 

Richmond and rejoin approximately 11 miles south of the city. 

Additional sections evaluated as part of the Project included approximately 8.3 miles of the CSXT 

Peninsula Subdivision CA-Line from Beulah Road (MP CA-76.1) in Henrico County, VA east of 

Richmond to AM Junction in downtown Richmond, and the approximately 26-mile Buckingham 

Branch Railroad (BBR) from AM Junction to the RF&P Crossing (MP CA-111.8) north of 

Richmond in Doswell, VA. 

In Arlington, the Project connects to existing CSXT track extending across the Potomac River on 

the Long Bridge into Washington, D.C. and Union Station, the southern terminus of Amtrak’s 

NEC. In downtown Richmond and at Centralia, the Project connects to both the Richmond to 

Raleigh segment of the SEHSR corridor and the Richmond to Hampton Roads segment of the 

SEHSR corridor. The Washington, D.C. to Richmond segment is an integral part of the overall 

Washington, D.C. to Charlotte SEHSR corridor and provides a critical link between high speed 

passenger service from Boston to Washington, D.C. and the southeastern United States (U.S.). 

Long Bridge Over the Potomac River 

2 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-2 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-1: DC2RVA Project Corridor 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-3 Community Impact Assessment 

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Alternatives developed as part of the DC2RVA Project include two elements: proposed train 

service that would run throughout the corridor (see Section 2.1.1), and physical improvements 

along the rail alignment. The Project will include specific rail infrastructure improvements and 

service upgrades to deliver higher speed passenger rail, expand commuter rail, and 

accommodate growth of freight rail service in an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor. 

The increased capacity will improve passenger rail service frequency, reliability, and door-todoor competitive travel time in a corridor shared by growing volumes of passenger, commuter, 

and freight rail traffic. Specific improvements to the existing rail infrastructure between 

Arlington, VA, and Centralia, VA, include: 

 Corridor-wide improvements to train operating capacity to accommodate efficient 

operation of passenger, commuter, and freight rail service with increased frequency, 

reliability, and speed, including an additional main track along most of the corridor, 

additional sidings, crossovers, yard bypasses and leads, and other capacity and reliability 

improvements at certain locations. 

 Corridor-wide upgrades to existing track and signal systems to achieve higher operating 

speeds, including curve realignments, higher-speed crossovers between tracks, passing 

sidings, and grade crossing improvements. 

 New or replacement station, platform, and parking improvements at intercity passenger 

stations in the corridor to improve the efficiency of railroad operations, improve quality 

of service, and accommodate increased ridership. 

 Safety improvements to roadway crossing treatments, to include median treatment, grade 

separations, and/or closure of existing at-grade crossings of the rail corridor. 

The environmental impacts of these improvements and measures to avoid, minimize, or 

otherwise mitigate such impacts are described in the EIS. 

Studies in support of the Project addressed passenger and freight rail operations and service 

between Union Station in Washington, D.C. and Richmond and beyond, but the Project will not 

include physical improvements to the Long Bridge across the Potomac River or to rail infrastructure 

within Washington, D.C. Other projects will address these improvements as well as improvements 

to the rail infrastructure north of Arlington and south of Centralia along the SEHSR corridor. 

2.1.1 Passenger Rail Service in Project Corridor 

Amtrak operates four types of passenger service in the DC2RVA corridor: 

 Northeast Regional (Virginia) Amtrak service provides regional passenger rail service 

along the length of the Northeast Corridor from Boston and New York and continues 

south to serve routes in Virginia. Trains make local station stops. 

 Interstate Corridor (Carolinian) Amtrak operates between New York and North Carolina 

(one single daily round trip) through Virginia, making fewer stops in the DC2RVA 

corridor than the Northeast Regional service. 

 Long Distance Amtrak service operates from New York and continues through 

Washington, D.C. and Virginia to other out-of-state locations. Long distance trains serve 

the fewest of Amtrak station stops within the DC2RVA corridor. 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-4 Community Impact Assessment 

 Auto Train Amtrak service operates as a daily nonstop, overnight train between dedicated 

station facilities in Lorton, VA and Florida, and carries passengers and their automobiles. 

DRPT is proposing to add nine daily roundtrip SEHSR intercity passenger trains to the corridor: 

 Four new roundtrips of Northeast Regional (SEHSR) service, to provide additional 

frequencies on the same routes of existing Amtrak Northeast Regional (Virginia) services, 

terminating within Virginia (either Newport News, Norfolk, or Richmond). 

 Five new roundtrips of Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) service, to complement Amtrak’s 

current Interstate Corridor (North Carolina) service, by providing additional frequencies 

to North Carolina. The SEHSR trains have slightly different service patterns in the 

DC2RVA corridor than the existing Amtrak service, and use different routes south of the 

DC2RVA corridor, where SEHSR trains are expected to provide a faster and more direct 

route to Raleigh and Charlotte, NC. 

From Washington, D.C., all new SEHSR trains would continue on to Philadelphia, New York, 

and Boston. The plan is to incorporate this service in to Amtrak’s regional and long-distance 

intercity passenger rail network. Refer to Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS for full summary of proposed 

service and ridership. 

2.1.2 Tier II EIS Planning Dates 

For this EIS, FRA and DRPT established two important planning dates. The first planning date 

is 2025, which is FRA and DRPT’s current best estimate of when construction of the DC2RVA 

infrastructure could be completed and the new DC2RVA service would be placed in operation. 

FRA and DRPT’s estimate of the year 2025 as the “opening day” is dependent on many factors, 

not the least of which is finalizing the EIS and Record of Decision. The date also assumes that 

federal funding in addition to other funding sources will be available at the level required to build 

all the proposed infrastructure improvements and acquire the necessary equipment and trainsets. 

DRPT based this date on an aggressive but potentially achievable schedule assumption that all 

necessary permits, approvals, agreements, and funding could be finalized by 2020, final design 

would take one year (2021), right-of-way acquisition (if needed) would take one year (2022), and 

construction would take three years (2023 – 2025). FRA and DRPT also used 2025 as the date 

when the physical impacts associated with DC2RVA Project construction would take place. Thus, 

all the physical impact analyses within this Draft EIS on human and natural resources are 

estimated for 2025, and compared to the No Build Alternative conditions projected for 2025. 

The second key planning date established by FRA and DRPT is the planning horizon date of 2045, 

20 years after the projected implementation of the new rail service in 2025. Both the Passenger 

Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) and FRA guidance require that DRPT 

demonstrate that the proposed project is sufficient to deliver the proposed passenger rail benefits 

and an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor over a 20-year time horizon following the 

completion of the passenger project. DRPT uses operational simulations analysis, as discussed in 

Section 2.6.2, to test the proposed alternatives to determine if the rail capacity is adequate for both 

the opening day (2025) levels of projected freight, commuter and passenger rail traffic and to 

determine if the infrastructure remains adequate over the 20-year planning horizon or until 2045. 

DRPT also used the 2045 planning horizon date to estimate some of the longer term effects of the 

proposed service such as ridership, energy use, and effects on air quality, as well as indirect and 

cumulative effects. 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-5 Community Impact Assessment 

2.2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Developing potential rail alignments was an iterative process. DRPT relied on previous studies 

and public scoping comment as the starting point for developing potential rail alignments. Rail 

alignment modifications were made to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects on 

environmental resources and existing infrastructure, and to minimize the need for additional new 

infrastructure, while preserving the ability of that alignment to meet the Project’s Purpose and 

Need. The final screening evaluation—to determine the Build Alternatives to be carried forward 

for evaluation in the Draft EIS—focused on each rail alignment’s ability to reduce trip times based 

on increased track design speed and to increase the reliability of rail operations based upon added 

capacity, with the least potential environmental impact and consideration of cost to construct. 

As part of the Build Alternatives, DRPT evaluated both existing and potential new passenger rail 

stations in the DC2RVA corridor. DRPT plans to incorporate the DC2RVA SEHSR passenger train 

service into Amtrak’s regional and long distance intercity passenger rail network; along the 

DC2RVA corridor, these existing stations include: Alexandria, Woodbridge, Quantico, 

Fredericksburg, Ashland, and Staples Mill Road and Main Street in Richmond. Additionally, in 

Richmond, DRPT is considering two proposed new locations under some Build Alternatives: 

Boulevard Station and Broad Street Station. However, not all proposed trains would necessarily 

serve all existing or proposed stations. 

For evaluation in the Tier II Draft EIS, DRPT combined and categorized Build Alternatives into 

six alternative areas along the corridor (Figure 2-2): 

 Alternative Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach): 1-mile section that includes 

approach alignments to the Long Bridge, which crosses the Potomac River between VA 

and DC. 

 Alternative Area 2: Northern Virginia: 47-mile section that includes additional track 

within existing railroad right-of-way. 

 Alternative Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads): 14-mile section that 

includes alignments through or around the city. 

 Alternative Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell): 29-mile section that includes 

additional track primarily within the existing railroad right-of-way. 

 Alternative Area 5 Ashland: Ashland (Doswell to I-295): 10-mile section including 

alignments through or around the town. 

 Alternative 6 Richmond (I-295 to Centralia): 23-mile section including different station 

locations and routing options along the A-Line and/or S-Line. 

Project Build Alternatives were developed separately, specific to the existing conditions, 

constraints, and/or needs of each of the six areas, and will be linked to form a single DRPT 

Recommended Preferred Alternative for the corridor, to be confirmed in the Final EIS and Record 

of Decision (ROD). 

Refer to Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS for full summary of the alternatives development process and 

description of Build Alternatives, and Chapter 7 of the Draft EIS for description of the DRPT 

Recommended Preferred Alternative. 

 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-6 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-2: Build Alternative Areas 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-7 Community Impact Assessment 

In general, the DC2RVA Project proposes to increase capacity by adding one additional main 

track. In most areas, the Project will add a new third track in addition to two existing tracks. The 

determination of the location of the new track on the east or west of existing trackage varies by 

location within the corridor based on physical constraints and minimization of impacts. For each 

alternative, DRPT also evaluated the potential to realign the tracks to improve speeds. The 

proposed Build Alternatives vary within the City of Fredericksburg and the Town of Ashland, 

where alignments outside of the existing right-of-way were considered (i.e., bypass alignments 

around the downtown areas); the typical section of the new bypass alignments consists of two 

tracks. 

From a wide range of options that were considered during the alternatives development process, 

23 Build Alternatives, which vary within each alternative area, were included for evaluation in 

the Draft EIS (Table 2-1). 

Table 2-1: Build Alternatives 

Alternative Area Alternative Description 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A Add Two Tracks on the East 

1B Add Two Tracks on the West 

1C Add One Track East and One Track West 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 2A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

3B Add One Track East of Existing 

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 4A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

5A–Ashcake Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

5B Add One Track East of Existing 

5B–Ashcake Add One Track East of Existing (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass 

5C–Ashcake Add Two-Track West Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

5D–Ashcake Three Tracks Centered Through Town (Add One Track, Relocate 

Station to Ashcake) 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A Staples Mill Road Station Only 

6B–A-Line Boulevard Station Only, A-Line 

6B–S-Line Boulevard Station Only, S-Line 

6C Broad Street Station Only 

6D Main Street Station Only 

6E Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations 

6F Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations 

6G Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations 

As shown in the table, the eight Build Alternatives in Richmond include four single-station options 

that would consolidate passenger service to one station, and three two-station alternatives that offer 

combinations of services and rail line routes using Main Street Station and Staples Mill Road 

Station. These Richmond station options drive the corridor-wide operations of the DC2RVA 

Project. Ridership, travel time, and on-time performance vary by Build Alternative based on the 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-8 Community Impact Assessment 

different Richmond station options. Estimated travel time between Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond is dependent on the number and location of station stops as well as the track design. 

Each Build Alternative includes build-alternative-specific improvements to features such as 

stations and at-grade roadway crossings, as applicable. The following sections provide details of 

each of these Build Alternatives, as well as the No Build Alternative. 

2.2.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative defines the future infrastructure and service levels that will result from 

planned investments in the Washington, D.C. to Richmond rail corridor, independent of the 

improvements planned by the DC2RVA Project. 

Information about planned physical improvements and rail service additions in the corridor was 

gathered from fiscally-constrained Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) planning 

documents, Commonwealth multiyear improvement programs, and from transit agency 

planning documents. If a project was under construction, fully-funded, or was the focus of 

advanced collaborative planning (evidenced by partial funding, board-level commitments, or 

interagency agreements), it was assumed to be complete by 2025 for the purposes of the Draft EIS 

evaluation. Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS provides full description of elements included in the No 

Build Alternative. 

The purpose of the No Build Alternative is to serve as a baseline for comparison of potential 

effects and impacts of the DC2RVA Build Alternatives. The No Build alternative was fully 

evaluated and dismissed by the FRA in the 2002 SEHSR Tier I ROD because it does not meet the 

SEHSR Purpose and Need. Although previously dismissed as not a viable alternative, it is fully 

considered as part of the Tier II Draft EIS for the DC2RVA Project because the baseline is required 

by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

2.2.2 Build Alternatives 

The 23 Build Alternatives that are evaluated in the Tier II EIS for the DC2RVA Project are 

summarized below. Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS provides full information, including lists of specific 

improvements for track and station improvements, for each Build Alternative. 

Figures 2-3 through 2-23 show the proposed rail alignment improvements by alternative. Figures 

2-24 through 2-40 show the proposed station improvements. Note that all figures are provided 

at the end of this section. 

2.2.2.1 Build Alternatives in Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

There are three Build Alternatives in Area 1, which are described in Table 2-2. Build Alternative 

1A, 1B, and 1C are shown in Figure 2-3. There are no stations within this alternative area. 

Table 2-2: Arlington Area Build Alternatives: 1A, 1B, and 1C 

TRACK 

All three Build Alternatives would: 

 Equally support expanded intercity passenger service (all types), expanded VRE commuter service, and expanded CSXT 

freight service 

 Add two main tracks, with minor shifts to improve speed 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-9 Community Impact Assessment 

Table 2-2: Arlington Area Build Alternatives: 1A, 1B, and 1C 

TRACK 

 Be constructed within existing railroad right-of-way 

The difference between the alternatives is on which side(s) of the existing track the new track is added (as indicated in Build

Alternative names): two tracks on the east (1A); two tracks on the west (1B); one track east and one track west (1C) 

Final decision deferred to the completion of the Long Bridge Study (separate study by DDOT) 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 45 mph 

STATIONS 

No stations within area 

CROSSINGS 

No changes to existing public roadway crossings 

2.2.2.2 Build Alternatives in Area 2: Northern Virginia 

There is one Build Alternative in Area 2, which is described in Table 2-3. Build Alternative 2A is 

shown in Figure 2-4. 

Table 2-3: Northern Virginia Build Alternative 2A 

TRACK 

One main track would be added, with realignment of some curves to improve speed, to create: 

 Fourth track from Alexandria to Crystal City 

 Third track from Spotsylvania to Alexandria 

Improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Station improvements are mainly platform improvements and to be performed by VRE 

Proposed new DC2RVA service includes: 

 Alexandria: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) (Figure 2-24)

 Woodbridge: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) (Figure 2-25)

 Quantico: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) (no figure) 

 All other stations: VRE service only (no figure)

No changes to the locations of Amtrak (Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), Northeast Regional (Virginia), Long Distance, or Auto 

Train) or VRE commuter stations served 

CROSSINGS 

Close one existing public roadway crossing (Mount Hope Church Road), with alternate access provided; no grade separations 

of at-grade crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major water crossings at Occoquan River, Neabsco Creek, and Aquia Creek 

2.2.2.3 Build Alternatives in Area 3: Fredericksburg 

There are three Build Alternatives in Area 3, which are described in Table 2-4, Table 2-5, and 

Table 2-6. Build Alternative 3A, 3B, and 3C are shown in Figure 2-5, Figure 2-6, and Figure 2-7 

respectively. All three Build Alternatives would support expanded intercity passenger (all 

types), VRE commuter, and CSXT freight service, without change to stations served by existing 

Amtrak Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), Northeast Regional (Virginia), and Long Distance 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-10 Community Impact Assessment 

passenger service or VRE commuter service. Due to constraints of the geography through this 

location, the maximum authorized speed in this section is designed for 79 mph where feasible. 

Build Alternative 3B is consistent with the City of Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan (2015). 

Table 2-4: Fredericksburg Area Build Alternative 3A 

TRACK 

No construction of new track / no additional rail capacity within Fredericksburg 

 Existing two main tracks would be maintained, which are used by freight, passenger, and commuter trains, similar to existing conditions 

 Tracks would be shifted in some areas to improve speed 

Construction of one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the city 

All improvements are within existing right-of-way 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Improvements to Fredericksburg Station would include a new station building, side platform improvements, and a new 

parking structure (Figure 2-26)

Proposed new DC2RVA service at Fredericksburg Station: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) 

The other station in this alternative area is located in Spotsylvania County and provides VRE service only 

CROSSINGS 

All public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements (no roadway crossing closures or grade 

separations of public at-grade crossings) 

Improvements to major rail bridge over the Rappahannock River 

Table 2-5: Fredericksburg Area Build Alternative 3B

TRACK 

One main track would be added in most areas, with track shifts to improve speed 

 Within Fredericksburg, the additional track would be added east of the existing two tracks 

 A third track already exists between Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania stations; therefore, no improvements are required 

in this section 

Improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Improvements to Fredericksburg Station would include a new station building, a new elevated railway, side and center 

platform improvements, and a new parking structure (Figure 2-27) 

Proposed new DC2RVA service at Fredericksburg Station: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) 

The other station in this alternative area is located in Spotsylvania County and provides VRE service only

CROSSINGS 

Proposed new DC2RVA service at Fredericksburg Station: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) 

The other station in this alternative area is located in Spotsylvania County and provides VRE service only 

Improvements to major rail bridge over the Rappahannock River 

Table 2-6: Fredericksburg Area Build Alternative 3C 

TRACK 

Existing two-track corridor through the city would be maintained, with some track shifts to improve speed 

New two-track bypass would be constructed east of the city 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-11 Community Impact Assessment 

 Would serve all freight rail as well as some or all of Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Amtrak Interstate Corridor 

(Carolinian), Long Distance, and Auto Train passenger trains 

 Would require new right-of-way 

Construction of one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the bypass 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Improvements to Fredericksburg station would include a new station building, side platform improvements, and a new parking 

structure (Figure 2-26) 

Proposed new DC2RVA service at Fredericksburg Station: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) 

The other station in this alternative area is located in Spotsylvania County and provides VRE service only

CROSSINGS 

Public roadway crossings along existing Dahlgren Spur would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

All new public roadway crossings on the bypass would be grade-separated 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Improvements to major rail bridge over the Rappahannock River 

2.2.2.4 Build Alternatives in Area 4: Central Virginia 

There is one Build Alternative in Area 4, which is described in Table 2-7. Build Alternative 4A is 

shown in Figure 2-8. Based on geography throughout this area, this section is most suitable for 

higher speed passenger rail service, and therefore provides the greatest contiguous section along 

the DC2RVA corridor with a maximum authorized speed up to 90 mph. There are no stations 

within this alternative area. 

Table 2-7: Central Virginia area Build Alternative: 4A 

TRACK 

One main track would be added, with track shifts to improve speed 

Improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

Supports expanded intercity passenger service (all types) and CSXT freight service 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 90 mph 

STATIONS 

No stations within the area 

Would not preclude the development of a proposed future station at Carmel Church (not included as part of this study) 

CROSSINGS 

Close one existing public roadway crossing (Colemans Mill Road); no grade separations of at-grade crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Multiple crossings of small waterways and wetlands 

2.2.2.5 Build Alternatives in Area 5: Ashland 

There are seven Build Alternatives in Area 5, which are described in Table 2-8 through Table 2-

11 below. Build Alternative 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

are shown in Figure 2-9, Figure 2-10, Figure 2-11, Figure 2-12, Figure 2-13, Figure 2-14, and Figure 

2-15, respectively. 

The Ashland Build Alternatives include different station locations: either maintaining the station 

at the existing downtown station with improvements (Build Alternatives 5A, 5B, and 5C) or 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-12 Community Impact Assessment 

relocating the station to south of Ashcake Road (all Build Alternatives with “–Ashcake” in their 

name). The Build Alternatives with the same letter, with and without the “–Ashcake” 

designation, are otherwise similar in terms rail alignment through Ashland and identical north 

and south of Town. For ease of comparison, they are presented together in the tables below. 

Due to constraints of the geography through this location, the maximum authorized speed in this 

section is designed for 79 mph where feasible, with an existing 35 mph municipal slow order 

through the Town of Ashland. 

Table 2-8: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5A and 5A–Ashcake 

TRACK 

Both alternatives would maintain two existing tracks (no construction of new track/no additional rail capacity) within Ashland 

Both alternatives would construct one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the town 

All rail improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

STATIONS 

Both alternatives would provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service at different station locations: 

 5A: Would maintain existing station location with improvements, including 850-foot platforms, which would require closure 

of the existing roadway crossing at College Avenue; use of shorter, 350-foot platforms is an option to minimize impacts 

(Figure 2-28 A & B)

 5A–Ashcake: Would close the existing station location and relocate service to a new the station south of Ashcake Road 

(Figure 2-29)

CROSSINGS 

Both alternatives include the grade separation of two existing at-grade roadway crossings in Ashland: West Vaughan Road and 

Ashcake Road 

All other existing public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Table 2-9: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5B and 5B–Ashcake 

TRACK 

Both alternatives would maintain two existing tracks and construct one additional track east of the existing tracks within Ashland 

 The addition of a third track through town would require closure of a short portion of Railroad Avenue/Center Street 

 New right-of-way would be required for rail improvements within the town 

Both alternatives would construct one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the town 

 Rail improvements north and south of the town are generally within existing right-of-way 

STATIONS 

Both alternatives would provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia), with different station locations: 

 5B: Would maintain existing station location with improvements, including 850-foot platforms, which requires closure of 

the existing roadway crossing at College Avenue; use of shorter, 350-foot platforms is an option to minimize impacts (Figure 

2-30 A & B)

 5B–Ashcake: Would close the existing station location and relocate service to a new the station south of Ashcake Road 

(Figure 2-29)

CROSSINGS 

Both alternatives include the grade separation of two existing at-grade roadway crossings in Ashland: West Vaughan Road and 

Ashcake Road 

All other existing public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-13 Community Impact Assessment 

Table 2-10: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5C and 5C–Ashcake 

TRACK 

Both alternatives would construct a two-track bypass, west of Ashland, to serve all freight rail as well as all Interstate 

Corridor (SEHSR) and Amtrak Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), Long Distance, and Auto Train passenger trains 

 New right-of-way would be required on bypass alignment 

Both alternatives would maintain the existing two-track corridor through town 

 No additional right-of-way needed in town 

Both alternatives would construct one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the bypass 

 Rail improvements north and south of the town are generally within existing right-of-way 

STATIONS 

Both alternatives would provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service at different station locations: 

 5C: Would maintain existing station location with improvements, including 850-foot platforms, which requires closure of 

the existing roadway crossing at College Avenue; use of shorter, 350-foot platforms is an option to minimize impacts (Figure 

2-28 A & B) 

 5C–Ashcake: Would close the existing station location and relocate service to a new the station south of Ashcake Road 

(Figure 2-29)

CROSSINGS 

All new roadway crossings on the bypass would be grade-separated 

All existing public roadway crossings within town would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Table 2-11: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5D–Ashcake 

TRACK 

One additional main line track, with centering of all main line tracks on the existing alignment, would be constructed through 

the entire area, which generally requires additional railroad right-of-way, especially within the town of Ashland 

 The addition of a third track through town would require closure of a short portion of Railroad Avenue/Center Street 

STATIONS 

This rail alignment would require removal of the existing station building and platforms, resulting in the relocation of service 

to a new station south of Ashcake Road, to provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service (Figure 2-29)

CROSSINGS 

Includes the grade separation of two existing at-grade roadway crossings in Ashland: West Vaughan Road and Ashcake Road 

All other existing public roadway crossings within town would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

2.2.2.6 Build Alternatives in Area 6: Richmond 

There are eight Build Alternatives in Area 6. All Build Alternatives generally add one main track 

(though they vary whether they use the A-Line or S-Line through the city), and they vary in whether 

they consolidate passenger train service to a single station (including two potential new stations at 

Boulevard Station or Broad Street Station) or provide combinations of service at two stations. There 

are no changes to CSXT freight service routes due to proposed changes to passenger train routes as 

part of the DC2RVA Project. The Amtrak Auto Train does not stop in Richmond. 

Five of the Richmond area Build Alternatives are single-station alternatives, which are presented 

in Table 2-12 through Table 2-16. The single station alternatives are Build Alternative 6A, 6B–A-
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-14 Community Impact Assessment 

Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, and 6D, which are shown in Figure 2-16, Figure 2-17, Figure 2-18, Figure 2-

19, and Figure 2-20, respectively. All single-station alternatives consolidate Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) service, as well as all Amtrak Long Distance, Interstate 

Corridor (Carolinian), and Northeast Regional (Virginia) service, to one station. 

Three of the Richmond area Build Alternatives are two-station alternatives, which are presented 

in Table 2-17 through Table 2-19. All two station alternatives use the existing Staples Mill Road 

and Main Street Stations. The two station Build Alternatives are Build Alternatives 6E, 6F, and 

6G, which are shown in Figure 2-21, Figure 2-22, and Figure 2-23, respectively. All two-station 

alternatives provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) service to at 

least one station, and serves Amtrak Long Distance, Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), and 

Northeast Regional (Virginia) to one or both stations. 

Table 2-12: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6A (Staples Mill Road Station Only) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of RF&P (north of Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with track shifts 

to improve speed

STATIONS 

Existing Main Street Station would be closed to passenger rail service, and all service consolidated at Staples Mill Road Station 

Staples Mill Road Station would be improved and becomes the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 2-31)

 Does not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) service 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 2-13: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6B–A-Line (Boulevard Station Only) 

TRACK 

One of two Boulevard Station-Only alternatives in Area 6 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

Elevated loop track at new station 

STATIONS 

Main Street and Staples Mill Road stations would be closed to passenger rail service and all service relocated and consolidated 

to a new station at Boulevard Road 

New Boulevard Road Station would be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 2-32) 

 May not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) service 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-15 Community Impact Assessment 

CROSSINGS 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 2-14: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6B–S-Line (Boulevard Station Only) 

TRACK 

Second of two Boulevard Station-Only alternatives in Area 6 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Existing Main Street and Staples Mill Road stations would be closed to passenger rail service and all service relocated and 

consolidated to a new station at Boulevard Road 

New Boulevard Road Station would be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 2-32)

 May not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) service 

Locating all passenger train service (except Auto Train, which does not stop in Richmond) to S-Line, separate from CSXT’s 

principal freight corridor through Richmond (the A-Line), would reduce rail congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate four at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 2-15: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6C (Broad Street Station Only) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

At-grade loop track at new station 

STATIONS 

Existing Main Street and Staples Mill Road stations would be closed to passenger rail service 

New Broad Street Station would be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 2-33)

 May not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) service 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Station location would require two new at-grade crossings on West Leigh Street adjacent to proposed station, which would 

require a variance from state code and/or coordination with VDOT 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-16 Community Impact Assessment 

Table 2-15: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6C (Broad Street Station Only) 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 2-16: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6D (Broad Street Station Only) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Existing Staples Mill Road Station would be closed to passenger rail service and all service consolidated at Main Street Station 

Main Street Station would be improved and be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 2-34)

 Meets FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) service 

 Potential increases in passenger and freight delay may occur as proximity to I-95 prevents adding sufficient station platforms 

/ track on the west side of the station 

Locating all passenger train service (except Auto Train, which does not stop in Richmond) to S-Line, separate from CSXT’s 

principal freight corridor through Richmond (the A-Line), would reduce rail congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 2-17: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6E (Split Service) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Both existing stations would remain operational. All passenger trains would serve Staples Mill Road Station; trains to and 

from Newport News would additionally serve Main Street Station. 

 Staples Mill Road Station would be expanded and would be served by all passenger trains that stop in Richmond, including 

new proposed Northeast Regional (SEHSR) to Norfolk and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) trains (Figure 2-35)

 Main Street Station would have platform and parking improvements and would be served by all Northeast Regional (SEHSR 

and Virginia) passenger trains to Newport News (Figure 2-36)

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-17 Community Impact Assessment 

Table 2-18: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6F (Full Service) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Both existing stations would remain operational, with all passenger trains serving both stations. 

 Both stations would be improved, including new/modified station buildings, platforms, and parking (Figure 2-37 and Figure 2-

38) 

 Both stations would be served by all passenger trains that stop in Richmond, including new proposed Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) service 

Locating all passenger train service (except Auto Train, which does not stop in Richmond) to S-Line, separate from CSXT’s 

principal freight corridor through Richmond (the A-Line), would reduce rail congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 2-19: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6G (Shared Service) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and the S-Line (through Richmond), 

with track shifts to improve speed 

 The A-Line is used for service but does not require proposed track 

STATIONS 

Both existing stations would remain operational, with both stations being served by all new proposed SEHSR service and 

other Amtrak passenger train services to either one or both stations. 

 Both stations would be improved, including new/modified station buildings, platforms, and parking (Figure 2-39 and Figure 2-

40)

 Both stations would be served by all Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) trains 

 Long Distance (Amtrak) and Interstate Corridor (Carolinian) would serve Staples Mill Station only 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-18 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-3: Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-19 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-4: Build Alternative 2A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-20 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-5: Build Alternative 3A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-21 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-6: Build Alternative 3B 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-22 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-7: Build Alternative 3C 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-23 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-8: Build Alternative 4A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-24 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-9: Build Alternative 5A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-25 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-10: Build Alternative 5A–Ashcake 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-26 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-11: Build Alternative 5B 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-27 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-12: Build Alternative 5B–Ashcake 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-28 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-13: Build Alternative 5C 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-29 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-14: Build Alternative 5C–Ashcake 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-30 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-15: Build Alternative 5D–Ashcake 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-31 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-16: Build Alternative 6A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-32 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-17: Build Alternative 6B–A-Line 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-33 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-18: Build Alternative 6B–S-Line 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-34 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-19: Build Alternative 6C 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-35 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-20: Build Alternative 6D 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-36 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-21: Build Alternative 6E 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-37 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-22: Build Alternative 6F 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-38 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 2-23: Build Alternative 6G 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-39 Community Impact Assessment Figure 2-24: Alexandria Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-40 Community Impact Assessment Figure 2-25: Woodbridge Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-41 Community Impact Assessment Figure 2-26: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 3A and 3C
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-42 Community Impact Assessment Figure 2-27: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternative 3B
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-43 Community Impact Assessment Figure 2-28A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C (Two-Track/850-Foot Platforms) 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-44 Community Impact Assessment Figure 2-28B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C (Two-Track/350-Foot Platforms)
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-45 Community Impact Assessment Figure 2-29: Ashcake Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 5B–Ashcake, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-46 Community Impact Assessment Figure 2-30A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B (Three-Track/850-Foot Platforms) 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-47 Community Impact Assessment Figure 2-30B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B (Three-Track/350-Foot Platforms)
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-48 Community Impact Assessment Figure 2-31: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-49 Community Impact Assessment Figure 2-32: Boulevard Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-50 Community Impact Assessment Figure 2-33: Broad Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6C
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-51 Community Impact Assessment Figure 2-34: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6D
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-52 Community Impact Assessment Figure 2-35: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-53 Community Impact Assessment Figure 2-36: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-54 Community Impact Assessment Figure 2-37: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-55 Community Impact Assessment Figure 2-38: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-56 Community Impact Assessment Figure 2-39: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-57 Community Impact Assessment Figure 2-40: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-1 Community Impact Assessment 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Data and information on demographics, community facilities, emergency services, community 

characteristics, employment, income, and the local economy provide a baseline for analysis of 

potential impacts. These were compiled from aerial photos, local comprehensive and land use 

plans, the United States Census website (including the American Community Survey [ACS]), 

Geographic Information System (GIS) databases, city/county tax parcel databases, conceptual 

drawings/engineering, and field inspections. 

3.1 EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME 

Economic data, including employment, income, the industrial base, and the location of existing 

rail station locations, provide a baseline for analysis of potential impacts; these were compiled 

from local, regional, and national economic studies and databases, the Virginia Employment 

Commission (VEC), and preliminary design drawings. In particular, station locations and the 

potential economic effects to localities in the study area have been assessed. 

The jurisdictions in the study area are all part of either the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or the Richmond MSA. Both MSAs are large regional 

employment centers. The Washington-Arlington-Alexandria MSA has an economy based 

primarily on the location of the nation’s capital. The top 10 employers in late 2014 included federal 

agencies, individual jurisdictions and their respective school systems, and health care systems 

(VEC, 2015). The Richmond MSA has an economy based on the location of the state capital. The 

top 10 employers in late 2014 included Virginia Commonwealth University, federal agencies, 

health care agencies/systems, and individual jurisdictions (VEC, 2015). 

Total employment, as reported by VEC, in Table 3-1 is the number of employees working within 

a particular local jurisdiction. This number varies widely within the study area. The Total 

Workers, as reported by the United States Census, is the number of people living in a particular 

local jurisdiction that are working. The workers do not necessarily work within their local 

jurisdiction of residence. The difference between the two numbers, employment, and workers is 

the workers in-commuting and out-commuting. Localities with more employment than workers 

(e.g., Arlington and Henrico counties, the city of Richmond) have a net gain of employees 

traveling to work within their limits. The unemployment rate in the jurisdictions in the study 

corridor ranges from a low of 2.7 percent in Arlington County to a high of 5.1 percent in the city 

of Fredericksburg. 

3 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-2 Community Impact Assessment 

Table 3-1: Employment Patterns 

City/County Total Employment, 2Q, 2015 Unemployment Rate, Jan. 2016 

Arlington County 169,387 2.7% 

City of Alexandria 96,300 3.2% 

Fairfax County 587,782 3.4% 

Prince William County 122,810 3.9% 

Stafford County 41,358 4.2% 

City of Fredericksburg 23,456 5.1% 

Spotsylvania County 34,221 4.5% 

Caroline County 5,585 4.9% 

Hanover County 50,265 3.7% 

Henrico County 184,823 4.0% 

City of Richmond 149,147 4.9% 

Chesterfield County 129,117 4.1% 

Source: Community Profiles, Virginia Employment Commission, March 2016. 

3.2 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 

Data products from the United States Census Bureau were used for demographic information, 

primarily the 2009-2013 ACS. The study area traverses parts of 150 census tracts in Arlington 

County (2), the City of Alexandria (10), Fairfax County (13), Prince William County (11), Stafford 

County (10), the City of Fredericksburg (3), Spotsylvania County (4), Caroline County (6), 

Hanover County (12), Henrico County (17), the City of Richmond (51), and Chesterfield County 

(11). One tract contains no population data due to its location at Reagan National Airport. The 

demographic data of census tracts in the study area were examined to determine the presence of 

any potential Title VI populations, environmental justice populations, and any persons with 

Limited English Proficiency (LEP). The census data for each census tract were compared to the 

census data for the city/county of that particular tract. The population of minorities, persons with 

low-income, or persons with LEP within a particular census tract is identified as having a 

potential environmental justice population if it is greater than the value in its city/county. If a 

particular census tract has a percentage of the population of any of these groups above 50 percent, 

this has also been identified. 

The total population in most of these jurisdictions has been increasing steadily for many years 

(Table 3-2). The City of Richmond is the only jurisdiction that has not experienced population 

growth in excess of 20 percent since 1990. Fairfax County is the most populous jurisdiction in the 

Commonwealth, and the jurisdictions in the study area, in total, represented more than 39 percent 

of the Commonwealth’s population in 2015. The jurisdictions’ populations are projected to 

experience a wide range of change, from a loss in Arlington County, to increases of more than 

100 percent in Spotsylvania and Stafford counties (Table 3-3). Overall, the jurisdictions are 

projected to grow in population by more than 36 percent. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-3 Community Impact Assessment 

Table 3-2: Total Population Over Time 

City/County 1990 2000 2010 2015 Change 1990-2015 

Arlington County 170,936 189,453 207,627 234,678 37.29% 

City of Alexandria 111,183 128,283 139,966 159,571 43.52% 

Fairfax County 818,584 969,749 1,081,699 1,129,330 37.96% 

Prince William County 215,686 280,813 402,002 443,463 105.61% 

Stafford County 61,236 92,446 128,961 140,176 128.91% 

City of Fredericksburg 19,027 19,279 24,286 26,969 41.74% 

Spotsylvania County 57,403 90,395 122,397 128,998 124.72% 

Caroline County 19,217 22,121 28,545 29,792 55.03% 

Hanover County 63,306 86,320 99,863 104,013 64.30% 

Henrico County 217,881 262,300 306,935 320,717 47.20% 

City of Richmond 203,056 197,790 204,214 217,938 7.33% 

Chesterfield County 209,274 259,903 316,236 333,450 59.34% 

Study Area Total 2,166,789 2,598,852 3,062,731 3,269,095 50.87% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 1990, STF1; 2000, SF3; 2010, SF1; 2015, Weldon Cooper, 2016. 

Table 3-3: Project Population Over Time 

City/County 2015 2020 2030 2040 Change 2015-2040 

Arlington County 234,678 206,896 201,699 197,065 -16.03% 

City of Alexandria 159,571 145,116 147,706 149,195 -6.50% 

Fairfax County 1,129,330 1,182,609 1,271,995 1,350,245 19.56% 

Prince William County 443,463 487,768 573,535 659,301 48.67% 

Stafford County 140,176 178,152 244,410 333,654 138.03% 

City of Fredericksburg 26,969 26,647 28,383 29,917 10.93% 

Spotsylvania County 128,998 166,236 223,917 299,632 132.28% 

Caroline County 29,792 31,400 33,447 35,259 18.35% 

Hanover County 104,013 118,135 139,000 162,475 56.21% 

Henrico County 320,717 352,577 400,396 450,630 40.51% 

City of Richmond 217,938 206,674 208,665 210,368 -3.47% 

Chesterfield County 333,450 388,894 473,842 572,693 71.75% 

Study Area Total 3,269,095 3,491,104 3,946,995 4,450,434 36.14% 

Source: 2015, Weldon Cooper, 2016; 2020-2040, Weldon Cooper, 2012. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-4 Community Impact Assessment 

3.3 NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES 

Communities vary from those in older, well-established cities and towns to high-growth 

suburban areas in the counties surrounding the Washington, D.C. and Richmond metropolitan 

areas. The existing CSXT rail line has been part of the counties, cities, and individual communities 

since the early 1800s, and it has been a stimulus to community growth and development. The 

Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac (RF&P) Railroad Company was chartered in 1834 and 

included most of the existing CSXT corridor between Richmond and Washington, D.C. The 

communities have grown and developed around these rail lines. 

3.3.1 Communities along the DC2RVA Corridor 

Crystal City is the primary community adjacent to the DC2RVA corridor in Arlington County. It 

is a retail and residential community based partially on its excellent access to the transportation 

network, including the rail modes in the vicinity (Metro and Virginia Railway Express [VRE]) 

and to the roadway network. 

In the city of Alexandria, several communities line the DC2RVA corridor, including Braddock, 

Rosemont, and Old Town Alexandria. The DC2RVA corridor turns to the west and travels 

through more commercial and industrial development before crossing into Fairfax County. 

In Fairfax County, the area surrounding the DC2RVA corridor is primarily residential 

communities, including Mount Hebron Park, Monticello Woods, Maple Grove Estates, Franconia, 

Springfield Forest, Windsor Estates, Beverly Forest, Pohick Estates, Lorton, Harbor View, and 

Colchester. For most of these communities, the study area is either along an outer edge of 

residential development or part of commercial development within the community. In the case 

of Harbor View and Colchester, primary access is via Furnace Road. Furnace Road crosses under 

the DC2RVA corridor using a one-lane tunnel. 

In Prince William County, the DC2RVA corridor is along the edge of residential neighborhoods, 

as well as within Marine Corps Base Quantico (MCBQ). Communities along the DC2RVA 

corridor include Belmont Bay, Marumsco Acres, Potomac View, Marumsco Woods, Featherstone 

Shores, Dawson Landing, Riverside Station, and Potomac Shores. Within MCBQ, the DC2RVA 

corridor is in forested areas, and the central base itself is at the mouth of Chopawamsic Creek. 

This creek is also the county line between Prince William and Stafford counties. 

In Stafford County, primarily forested areas are along the DC2RVA corridor in the northern part 

of the county. Once south of Aquia Creek, communities that have extended toward the DC2RVA 

corridor include Aquia Beach, Aquia Bay Estates, Brittany Estates, and Potomac Run Farm. 

Between the existing VRE stations at Brooke and Leeland Road, the DC2RVA corridor continues 

to travel along the edges of residential development on local roads. South of the Leeland Road 

Station, development intensifies, and communities along the DC2RVA corridor include 

Northridge, Leeland Station, Mount Pleasant Estates, Heather Hills, Woodland, Bel Air, 

Lynwood, Clearview Heights, Dahlgren Junction, Debruyn, East Chatham Heights, Cedar Bluff, 

Ferry Farm, Argyle Heights, Tylerton, Little Falls, and Grandview. 

In the city of Fredericksburg, the DC2RVA corridor passes through downtown and Hazel Hill at 

the existing Fredericksburg VRE station. South of Virginia Route 3, the DC2RVAcorridor is along 

the western edge of Mayfield. The neighborhood abuts the CSXT main line track and 

Fredericksburg rail yard. The community is primarily single-family residential units. The 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-5 Community Impact Assessment 

DC2RVA corridor then passes through light industrial areas until it crosses into Spotsylvania 

County. 

In Spotsylvania County, the communities that are along the DC2RVA corridor are characterized 

by sparse rural residential development within rural communities and forested areas. The 

communities include Hamilton Crossing at the intersection of Mine Road and Benchmark Road 

and Summit, where the existing CSXT rail line crosses Summit Crossing Road. 

In Caroline County, the communities are very similar to those in Spotsylvania County — sparse 

rural residential development within rural communities and forested areas. These communities 

include Guinea, Woodford, Milford, Penola, and the southern end of Carmel Church along 

Jefferson Davis Highway. 

In Hanover County, Doswell is along the DC2RVA corridor in the northern part of the county. 

Through the remainder of Hanover County, the communities include Ashland, where the rail 

corridor currently divides both the Town and Randolph-Macon College, Gwathmey, Kenwood, 

and Elmont. 

In Henrico County, along the Elmont to Greendale and Greendale to South Acca yard 

(SAY)/West Acca Yard (WAY) sections, the communities are typically major residential 

developments and include Hunton, Glen Allen, Laurel Park, Boudar, Lakeside, and Dumbarton. 

Along the Rivanna Junction to Beulah-Peninsula subsection, the north side of the community of 

Oakland is separated from the section by Almond Creek and Bickerstaff Road. East of Oakland, 

the area along the section is either forested or industrial. 

Within the city of Richmond, there are four separate Project sections. The communities along 

these sections are established urban residential areas. Along the WAY to Centralia–A-Line 

section, communities include Sauer’s Gardens, Scott’s Addition, Malvern Gardens, the Museum 

District, Colonial Place, Windsor Farms, Carillon, Westover Hills, Cedarhurst, Forest View, 

Westover, Woodhaven, Southwood, McGuire, Hickory Hill, Deerbourne, Cherry Gardens, Broad 

Rock, and Walmsley. Along the SAY/WAY to AM Junction (Hermitage Lead) section, 

communities include Scott’s Addition, Newtowne West, Virginia Union University, Carver, 

Southern Barton Heights, and Gilpin. Along the AM Junction to Centralia–S-Line section, 

communities include Mosby, Union Hill, Downtown, Tobacco Row, Manchester, Blackwell, Oak 

Grove, Bellemeade, Windsor, Cullenwood, Davee Gardens, and Broad Rock. Along the Rivanna 

Junction to Beulah-Peninsula subsection, communities include Union Hill, Downtown, Tobacco 

Row, Shockoe Bottom, Chimborazo, Fulton, and Fulton Hill. 

In Chesterfield County, the WAY to Centralia–A-Line section is along Ampthill Heights, the 

western side of the community of Ampt Hill, Drewrys Bluff, Beulah Village, and Centralia. Along 

the AM Junction to Centralia–S-Line section, the community of Ampt Hill is separated from the 

section by forested areas. The section is then along the eastern side of the communities of Bensley 

Village and Bellwood before turning and is on the western side of the community of Chimney 

Corner. The section then travels along the edge of Bellwood Manor until crossing VA Route 288 

and terminates at the community of Centralia. 

3.3.2 Community Safety and Access 

FRA is the primary authorized agency for railway safety. The agency administers safety 

regulations (49 CFR 200-299) over all aspects of rail operations. Public safety is assessed based on 

the safety of passengers and employees on trains, in stations, and along the rail line, and 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-6 Community Impact Assessment 

construction workers during construction of any approved rail improvements. Safety is also 

considered for any persons or vehicles at any rail facilities, access points to the rail right-of-way, 

or to the rail system itself (stations). Detailed rail operations safety and security information is 

available in the System Safety Plan and System Security Plan. Detailed grade crossing safety 

assessments are available in the Transportation Technical Report. 

Within the individual communities, safety and security along the rail line encompasses physical 

access around the rail right-of-way, as well as the safety of residents and businesses due to rail 

operations (e.g., accidents, hazardous materials transport). As stated previously, the communities 

have grown and developed around the existing railroad right-of-way. This includes the roadway 

network, which has also developed around the railroad right-of-way and is used by residents, 

businesses, school transportation, and emergency services. CSXT has strict safety procedures, 

including extensive safety training and certification, regarding access to the right-of-way. 

Physical barriers are used in those parts of the DC2RVA corridor where those persons other than 

CSXT workers can easily access the right-of-way. 

Crossings are divided into categories: public crossings are those on highways under the 

jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to the traveling public; private 

crossings are those on roadways privately owned and used only by the landowner or licensee; 

and pedestrian crossings are those used solely by pedestrians. There are 200 crossings with 

roadways in the DC2RVA corridor. Of these crossings, 160 are with public roads and 40 are with 

private roads. Crossings are either at grade (79) or grade separated (121). Private at-grade 

crossings are primarily residential, farm, or industrial. More detail about crossing safety appears 

in the Transportation Technical Report. 

3.3.3 Community Facilities and Services 

There is a wide range of community facilities located along the DC2RVA corridor, including schools, 

religious facilities, community centers, cemeteries, police and fire stations, libraries, post offices, and 

medical facilities, as shown on Figure 3-1. A tabulation of community facilities within 500 feet of the 

DC2RVA rail line is provided in Table 3-4. Existing land use is shown in Appendix A. 

Hebrew Cemetery – Richmond, Virginia 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-7 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-8 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-9 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-10 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-11 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-12 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-13 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-14 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-15 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-16 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 3-1: Community Facilities 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-17 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-18 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-19 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-20 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-21 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-22 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-23 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-24 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-25 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-26 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-27 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-28 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-29 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-30 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-31 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-32 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-33 Community Impact Assessment 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-34 Community Impact Assessment 

Table 3-4: Community Facilities 

City/County 

Cemetery Fire Station Medical Facility Library

Police Station Post Office Religious Facility School/ University Community Center/ Museum 

Arlington County 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

City of Alexandria 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 4 1 

Fairfax County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Prince William County 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 

Stafford County 2 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 

City of Fredericksburg 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 

Spotsylvania County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Caroline County 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 

Hanover County 0 2 0 1 0 0 5 2 0 

Henrico County 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 

City of Richmond 3 1 3 1 2 0 13 10 5 

Chesterfield County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 

Totals 8 7 4 3 3 5 32 21 8 

Source: VDOT CEDAR data, 2016. City/County GIS databases. Virginia Department of Health, USGS, and ESRI databases. Field reviews, 

November, 2015 - May, 2016. 

3.4 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that “No person in the United States shall, on the 

ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits 

of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial 

assistance.” Title VI bars intentional discrimination, as well as disparate impact discrimination 

(i.e., a neutral policy or practice that has an unequal impact on protected groups). Data collection 

to determine the presence of any Title VI groups has occurred as part of this Project. 

Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations, requires that each federal agency “shall make achieving 

environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” Minority persons 

include citizens or lawful permanent residents of the Unites States who are African-American, 

Hispanic or Latino, Asian-American, American Indian, or Native Alaskan. Low-income persons 

are defined as those whose median household income is below the United States Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-35 Community Impact Assessment 

EO 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, mandates that 

federal agencies “examine the services they provide, identify any need for services to those with 

limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide those services 

so LEP persons can have meaningful access to them” and “to ensure that the programs and 

activities that they [federal agencies] normally provide in English are accessible to LEP persons 

and thus do not discriminate on the basis of national origin in violation of Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and its implementing regulations” (EO 13166). As part of EO 

13166, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance for all federal agencies and 

departments on implementing the LEP regulations because of the connection between Title VI 

barring of discrimination based on national origin and EO 13166. The Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) has compliance oversight regarding LEP regulations as part of NEPA compliance. 

3.4.1 Methodology 

Demographic data for the jurisdictions along the DC2RVA corridor were compiled to identify 

Title VI and low-income populations. As defined by Title VI and in the guidance for 

implementing EO 12898, minority populations include citizens or lawful permanent residents of 

the United States who, as defined by U.S. DOT Order 5610.2a, are: 

 Black: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa; 

 Hispanic or Latino: A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central, or South 

American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race; 

 Asian American: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, 

Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent; 

 American Indian and Alaskan Native: A person having origins in any of the original 

people of North America or South America (including Central America) and who 

maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition; or 

 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: A person having origins in any of the original 

peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. 

The U.S. DOT defines low-income as “a person whose median household income is at or below 

the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines” (U.S. 

DOT, 5610.2[a]). 

The U.S. DOT definition of a low-income population is “any readily identifiable group of lowincome persons who live in geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically 

dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be 

similarly affected by a proposed DOT program, policy, or activity” (U.S. DOT, 5610.2[a]). 

The U.S. DOT definition of a minority population is “any readily identifiable groups of minority 

persons who live in geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically 

dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be 

similarly affected by a proposed DOT program, policy, or activity” (U.S. DOT, 5610.2[a]). 

3.4.2 Title VI and Environmental Justice Populations 

The jurisdictions along the DC2RVA corridor have a wide range of demographic data (Table 3-

5). Two jurisdictions — Prince William County and the City of Richmond — contain minority 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-36 Community Impact Assessment 

populations that are more than 50 percent of the population. Low-income populations within the 

jurisdictions range from 5 to 25 percent. Persons with LEP range from a low of 1 percent in 

Caroline and Hanover counties to a high of more than 14 percent in Fairfax County. Persons with 

a disability range from 5 to 15 percent of the population. 

Table 3-5: City/County Demographic Data in 2013 

City/County Minorities (%) Low-Income (%) Total LEP (%)* Disabled (%)** 

Arlington County 78,231 (36.41%) 16,899 (7.97%) 17,092 (8.44%) 10,939 (5.20%) 

City of Alexandria 67,406 (46.91%) 11,980 (8.42%) 15,747 (11.82%) 9,013 (6.41%) 

Fairfax County 507,651 (46.11%) 64,274 (5.89%) 150,041 (14.61%) 69,834 (6.42%) 

Prince William County 217,574 (52.22%) 26,045 (6.34%) 45,533 (11.90%) 27,867 (6.84%) 

Stafford County 43,431 (32.93%) 6,549 (5.12%) 5,051 (4.10%) 9,619 (7.67%) 

City of Fredericksburg 10,331 (39.84%) 4,342 (18.57%) 1,145 (4.75%) 2,388 (9.30%) 

Spotsylvania County 35,153 (28.28%) 9,383 (7.59%) 3,868 (3.33%) 12,901 (10.46%) 

Caroline County 10,482 (36.45%) 3,444 (12.66%) 391 (1.45%) 3,831 (14.01%) 

Hanover County 15,064 (15.01%) 5,019 (5.12%) 1,209 (1.27%) 10,187 (10.26%) 

Henrico County 135,489 (43.52%) 32,877 (10.69%) 16,709 (5.74%) 30,749 (9.96%) 

City of Richmond 125,893 (60.56%) 50,681 (25.61%) 8,834 (4.54%) 31,613 (15.40%) 

Chesterfield County 112,981 (35.26%) 21,240 (6.74%) 12,601 (4.19%) 30,605 (9.64%) 

Totals 1,359,686 (43.48%) 252,733 (8.21%) 278,221 (9.54%) 249,546 (8.11%) 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2009-2013 American Community Survey. 

Note: * Limited English Proficiency is based on the population aged 5 years and over. 

 ** Census disability is based on the civilian non-institutionalized population with a self-identified disability. 

Individual census tracts (Table 3-6) were compared to the jurisdiction in which they are situated. 

Those census tracts with any groups greater than 50 percent of the population are highlighted in 

orange. Those tracts with groups greater than their respective city/county are highlighted in 

yellow. Any group with less than 50 persons is not displayed in accordance with United States 

Census Bureau guidance on privacy. The predominant language spoken by those persons who 

speak English less than very well is identified in Table 3-6. There is a wide spectrum of each 

demographic group. Minorities predominate in census tracts in Fairfax County, Prince William 

County, Henrico County, the city of Richmond, and Chesterfield County. Low-income persons 

predominate in Prince William County, Caroline County, Hanover County, the city of Richmond, 

and Chesterfield County. Persons with LEP predominate in Fairfax County, Prince William 

County, and Chesterfield County. Persons with a disability predominate in Henrico County, the 

city of Richmond, and Chesterfield County. Figure 3-2 also identifies the census tracts that are 

highlighted in Table 3-6. 

Census tracts can have data that vary widely from other tracts based on their unique geographies. 

High populations in group quarters such as college dormitories, retirement communities, and 

correctional facilities, can affect data. For example, Census Tract 102.01 in Stafford County is 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-37 Community Impact Assessment 

MCBQ. Census Tract 2007.01 in Alexandria is predominantly a rail yard and commercial 

properties. Some of the census tract boundaries are also along existing roadways (i.e., sides of the 

same street are in separate census tracts); therefore, they may not give the most accurate picture 

of a community. In several jurisdictions, the CSXT rail line is the boundary between census tracts 

Table 3-6: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Census Tract Total 

Population 

Minorities (%) Low-Income 

(%) 

Total LEP (%)* 

Language(s) 

Spoken 

Disabled (%)** 

Census Tract 1034.02, 

Arlington County 

4,981 1,697 (34.07%) 229 (4.60%) 192 (3.97%) 239 (5.11%) 

Census Tract 2004.03, 

City of Alexandria 

1,401 647 (46.18%) – 111 (8.40%) 99 (7.56%) 

Census Tract 2006, 

City of Alexandria 

5,092 3,211 (63.06%) 443 (8.70%) 909 (18.93%) 

Spanish (625) 

Chinese (138) 

577 (11.40%) 

Census Tract 2007.01, 

City of Alexandria 

708 175 (24.72%) – – –

Census Tract 2007.02, 

City of Alexandria 

4,258 1,233 (28.96%) 181 (4.65%) 219 (5.30%) 151 (3.99%) 

Census Tract 2008.02, 

City of Alexandria 

3,015 1,228 (40.73%) 375 (12.44%) 163 (5.78%) 228 (7.56%) 

Census Tract 2013, 

City of Alexandria 

3,360 976 (29.05%) 291 (8.66%) 232 (7.55%) 260 (7.79%) 

Census Tract 2015, 

City of Alexandria 

3,744 504 (13.46%) 60 (1.75%) 54 (1.57%) 120 (3.54%) 

Census Tract 2016, 

City of Alexandria 

4,774 2,128 (44.57%) 1,072 (22.46%) – 266 (5.75%) 

Census Tract 2018.01, 

City of Alexandria 

5,351 1,446 (27.02%) 228 (4.26%) 162 (3.17%) 211 (4.06%) 

Census Tract 2019, 

City of Alexandria 

1,576 249 (15.80%) 70 (4.44%) – 105 (6.84%) 

Census Tract 4201, 

Fairfax County 

4,206 2,935 (69.78%) 772 (18.35%) 1,211 (32.22%) 

Spanish (513) 

Vietnamese (220) 

314 (7.50%) 

Census Tract 4202.01, 

Fairfax County 

3,682 1,817 (49.35%) 103 (2.81%) 414 (12.01%) 232 (6.43%) 

Census Tract 4202.02, 

Fairfax County 

2,115 1,063 (50.26%) 108 (5.11%) 152 (7.56%) 98 (4.65%) 

Census Tract 4202.03, 

Fairfax County 

2,615 1,092 (41.76%) 183 (7.00%) 186 (7.48%) 191 (7.43%) 

Census Tract 4203, 

Fairfax County 

5,593 2,349 (42.00%) 119 (2.13%) 699 (13.31%) 377 (6.87%) 

Census Tract 4210.01, 

Fairfax County 

3,097 1,807 (58.35%) 147 (4.75%) 666 (23.92%) 

Spanish 

201 (6.61%) 

Census Tract 4210.02, 

Fairfax County 

5,210 3,169 (60.83%) 401 (7.74%) 1,156 (23.60%) 

Spanish (409) 

Vietnamese (104) 

351 (6.86%) 

Census Tract 4211.01, 

Fairfax County 

5,950 3,405 (57.23%) 72 (1.22%) 729 (13.21%) 189 (3.24%) 

 Continued – Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. (see end of table for detailed notes.)
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-38 Community Impact Assessment 

Table 3-6: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Census Tract Total 

Population 

Minorities (%) Low-Income 

(%) 

Total LEP (%)* 

Language(s) 

Spoken 

Disabled (%)** 

Census Tract 4211.03, 

Fairfax County 

5,004 1,726 (34.49%) – 433 (9.30%) 183 (3.72%) 

Census Tract 4220, 

Fairfax County 

3,881 2,229 (57.43%) 192 (5.15%) 644 (17.83%) 

Spanish 

356 (9.72%) 

Census Tract 4221.01, 

Fairfax County 

6,516 4,368 (67.03%) 236 (3.63%) 1,007 (17.20%) 

Spanish (360) 

Vietnamese (175) 

298 (4.72%) 

Census Tract 4221.02, 

Fairfax County 

6,676 5,472 (81.97%) 165 (2.47%) 1,462 (24.07%) 

Spanish (518) 

Tagalog (202) 

430 (6.52%) 

Census Tract 4526, 

Fairfax County 

5,849 3,532 (60.39%) 401 (6.90%) 1,291 (23.83%) 

Spanish 

370 (6.50%) 

Census Tract 9001, 

Prince William County 

3,449 1,434 (41.58%) 178 (5.16%) 181 (5.58%) 253 (7.51%) 

Census Tract 9002.01, 

Prince William County 

1,922 1,329 (69.15%) 282 (14.76%) 503 (28.40%) 

Spanish 

180 (9.65%) 

Census Tract 9002.02, 

Prince William County 

4,493 3,211 (71.47%) 576 (12.82%) 1,363 (32.16%) 

Spanish 

423 (9.48%) 

Census Tract 9002.03, 

Prince William County 

4,431 3,651 (82.40%) 668 (15.08%) 822 (21.06%) 

Spanish 

343 (7.86%) 

Census Tract 9006, 

Prince William County 

7,511 5,756 (76.63%) 1,924 (26.11%) 2,350 (35.04%) 

Spanish 

367 (4.93%) 

Census Tract 9007.01, 

Prince William County 

5,553 4,046 (72.86%) 329 (5.92%) 475 (9.57%) 531 (9.75%) 

Census Tract 9007.02, 

Prince William County 

8,022 4,486 (55.92%) 535 (6.67%) 1,610 (22.23%) 

Spanish (1,226) 

Korean (118) 

300 (3.80%) 

Census Tract 9008.01, 

Prince William County 

5,484 3,288 (59.96%) 159 (2.90%) 148 (2.87%) 299 (5.63%) 

Census Tract 9008.02, 

Prince William County 

6,773 5,730 (84.60%) 719 (10.62%) 625 (10.22%) 538 (8.09%) 

Census Tract 9009.04, 

Prince William County 

5,328 3,868 (72.60%) 415 (7.87%) 503 (9.98%) 282 (5.37%) 

Census Tract 9011, 

Prince William County 

6,994 2,496 (35.69%) 247 (5.12%) 290 (4.94%) 166 (4.24%) 

Census Tract 101.05, 

Stafford County 

7,507 2,839 (37.82%) 441 (5.87%) 628 (9.22%) 

Spanish 

511 (7.02%) 

Census Tract 101.06, 

Stafford County 

3,178 240 (7.55%) 79 (2.56%) – 293 (9.77%) 

Census Tract 101.07, 

Stafford County 

3,017 525 (17.40%) 100 (3.31%) – 274 (9.26%) 

Census Tract 102.01, 

Stafford County 

2,315 883 (38.14%) – – –

Census Tract 104.03, 

Stafford County 

2,899 707 (24.39%) 116 (4.02%) 108 (3.96%) 261 (9.11%) 

 Continued – Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. (see end of table for detailed notes.)
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-39 Community Impact Assessment 

Table 3-6: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Census Tract Total 

Population 

Minorities (%) Low-Income 

(%) 

Total LEP (%)* 

Language(s) 

Spoken 

Disabled (%)** 

Census Tract 104.04, 

Stafford County 

6,289 1,806 (28.72%) 348 (5.57%) 92 (1.55%) 538 (8.75%) 

Census Tract 104.05, 

Stafford County 

6,350 1,722 (27.12%) 101 (1.59%) 64 (1.08%) 476 (7.65%) 

Census Tract 104.06, 

Stafford County 

3,086 1,030 (33.38%) 382 (12.42%) 56 (1.89%) 293 (9.62%) 

Census Tract 105.02, 

Stafford County 

4,381 626 (14.29%) 126 (2.93%) 57 (1.38%) 351 (8.21%) 

Census Tract 105.04, 

Stafford County 

1,584 142 (8.96%) 155 (9.83%) – 249 (15.78%) 

Census Tract 1, City 

of Fredericksburg 

2,948 642 (21.78%) 345 (11.70%) – 310 (10.53%) 

Census Tract 3.02, 

City of Fredericksburg 

4,849 1,618 (33.37%) 841 (17.34%) 156 (3.48%) 368 (7.75%) 

Census Tract 4, City 

of Fredericksburg 

2,935 1,838 (62.62%) 498 (17.43%) – 478 (16.70%) 

Census Tract 202.01, 

Spotsylvania County 

5,640 2,129 (37.75%) 520 (9.22%) 325 (6.11%) 

Spanish 

338 (5.99%) 

Census Tract 202.02, 

Spotsylvania County 

5,045 1,710 (33.89%) 218 (4.33%) 237 (5.07%) 

Spanish (112) 

Chinese (94) 

523 (10.42%) 

Census Tract 202.03, 

Spotsylvania County 

4,882 1,707 (34.97%) 369 (7.56%) 162 (3.58%) 

Laotian (46) 

Korean (28) 

600 (12.45%) 

Census Tract 202.05, 

Spotsylvania County 

4,297 1,541 (35.86%) 374 (8.73%) 124 (3.15%) 611 (14.22%) 

Census Tract 301, 

Caroline County 

4,617 1,683 (36.45%) 483 (13.97%) 148 (3.36%) 

Polish (62) 

Korean (55) 

565 (16.34%) 

Census Tract 302.01, 

Caroline County 

2,447 824 (33.67%) 145 (5.96%) – 323 (13.23%) 

Census Tract 303, 

Caroline County 

2,952 1,217 (41.23%) 394 (13.87%) – 351 (12.38%) 

Census Tract 304, 

Caroline County 

1,654 339 (20.50%) 320 (19.35%) – 344 (20.80%) 

Census Tract 305, 

Caroline County 

12,182 4,206 (34.53%) 1,531 (12.70%) 141 (1.24%) 1,457 (11.98%) 

Census Tract 306, 

Caroline County 

3,097 1,700 (54.89%) 335 (11.26%) 68 (2.34%) 

Persian 

463 (15.57%) 

Census Tract 3201, 

Hanover County 

5,677 707 (12.45%) 627 (11.04%) – 621 (10.94%) 

Census Tract 3204, 

Hanover County 

4,507 760 (16.86%) 456 (10.12%) 62 (1.46%) 

Spanish 

520 (11.54%) 

Census Tract 3205, 

Hanover County 

3,200 208 (6.50%) 75 (2.36%) – 348 (10.95%) 

 Continued – Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. (see end of table for detailed notes.)
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-40 Community Impact Assessment 

Table 3-6: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Census Tract Total 

Population 

Minorities (%) Low-Income 

(%) 

Total LEP (%)* 

Language(s) 

Spoken 

Disabled (%)** 

Census Tract 3206.01, 

Hanover County 

4,258 1,618 (38.00%) 273 (9.81%) 179 (4.31%) 

Korean 

725 (17.73%) 

Census Tract 3206.02, 

Hanover County 

3,024 398 (13.16%) 225 (7.47%) – 341 (11.30%) 

Census Tract 3207.01, 

Hanover County 

2,828 336 (11.88%) 78 (2.77%) – 271 (9.60%) 

Census Tract 3208.01, 

Hanover County 

2,503 447 (17.86%) 236 (9.46%) – 176 (7.03%) 

Census Tract 3208.03, 

Hanover County 

5,342 718 (13.44%) 177 (3.31%) – 165 (3.10%) 

Census Tract 3208.04, 

Hanover County 

5,340 641 (12.00%) – – 346 (6.49%) 

Census Tract 3208.05, 

Hanover County 

2,912 267 (9.17%) 134 (4.61%) – 263 (9.06%) 

Census Tract 3209, 

Hanover County 

7,863 1,099 (13.98%) 271 (3.45%) 159 (2.14%) 

Spanish 

755 (9.61%) 

Census Tract 3211, 

Hanover County 

5,660 669 (11.82%) 269 (4.77%) 185 (3.55%) 

Spanish 

582 (10.28%) 

Census Tract 2004.06, 

Henrico County 

9,236 2,660 (28.80%) 597 (6.59%) 358 (4.09%) 763 (8.43%) 

Census Tract 2005.02, 

Henrico County 

2,062 494 (23.96%) 206 (10.09%) 78 (3.96%) 244 (11.87%) 

Census Tract 2005.03, 

Henrico County 

3,919 776 (19.80%) 402 (10.49%) 64 (1.77%) 389 (10.14%) 

Census Tract 2006, 

Henrico County 

4,792 4,087 (33.41%) 804 (16.96%) 429 (9.48%) 

Spanish 

475 (9.91%) 

Census Tract 2007, 

Henrico County 

3,911 3,841 (33.80%) 869 (23.97%) – 884 (24.39%) 

Census Tract 2008.01, 

Henrico County 

2,983 2,750 (43.51%) 412 (13.81%) 154 (5.48%) 546 (18.30%) 

Census Tract 2008.02, 

Henrico County 

2,127 2,004 (46.83%) 200 (9.40%) 104 (5.20%) 242 (11.38%) 

Census Tract 2008.04, 

Henrico County 

5,828 5,102 (87.54%) 1,023 (17.71%) 355 (6.52%) 

Spanish 

664 (11.41%) 

Census Tract 2008.05, 

Henrico County 

4,640 4,520 (97.41%) 2,258 (48.66%) 336 (8.21%) 

African (140) 

Native North 

American (134) 

656 (14.14%) 

Census Tract 2009.03, 

Henrico County 

7,195 3,002 (41.72%) 376 (5.23%) 236 (3.58%) 601 (8.36%) 

Census Tract 2009.04, 

Henrico County 

6,820 4,712 (69.09%) 370 (5.43%) 284 (4.40%) 700 (10.27%) 

Census Tract 2009.05, 

Henrico County 

4,912 3,069 (62.48%) 766 (15.77%) 167 (3.69%) 778 (15.85%) 

Census Tract 2009.06, 

Henrico County 

4,422 1,097 (24.81%) 279 (6.31%) 142 (3.52%) 471 (10.65%) 

 Continued – Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. (see end of table for detailed notes.)
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-41 Community Impact Assessment 

Table 3-6: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Census Tract Total 

Population 

Minorities (%) Low-Income 

(%) 

Total LEP (%)* 

Language(s) 

Spoken 

Disabled (%)** 

Census Tract 2010.01, 

Henrico County 

6,151 5,478 (89.06%) 625 (10.17%) 98 (1.70%) 467 (7.62%) 

Census Tract 2010.02, 

Henrico County 

2,986 2,582 (86.47%) 420 (14.07%) – 260 (8.71%) 

Census Tract 2015.01, 

Henrico County 

10,616 8,658 (81.56%) 1,814 (17.16%) 125 (1.26%) 943 (8.89%) 

Census Tract 2016.02, 

Henrico County 

4,727 2038 (43.11%) 253 (5.36%) – 634 (13.48%) 

Census Tract 102, 

City of Richmond 

4,283 1,143 (26.69%) 467 (11.20%) 60 (1.51%) 851 (20.40%) 

Census Tract 103, 

City of Richmond 

1,771 1,727 (97.52%) 441 (24.90%) – 196 (11.07%) 

Census Tract 104.01, 

City of Richmond 

3,207 1,139 (35.52%) 509 (15.96%) – 558 (17.42%) 

Census Tract 104.02, 

City of Richmond 

2,917 1,126 (38.60%) 413 (15.37%) 113 (4.06%) 363 (12.93%) 

Census Tract 105, 

City of Richmond 

1,309 1,039 (79.37%) 167 (12.76%) – 133 (10.16%) 

Census Tract 106, 

City of Richmond 

2,098 1,779 (84.80%) 201 (9.76%) – 337 (16.37%) 

Census Tract 107, 

City of Richmond 

2,708 2,648 (97.78%) 608 (22.45%) – 541 (19.98%) 

Census Tract 108, 

City of Richmond 

3,979 3,731 (93.77%) 947 (23.97%) – 761 (19.34%) 

Census Tract 109, 

City of Richmond 

2,545 2,252 (88.49%) 543 (21.34%) – 645 (25.34%) 

Census Tract 110, 

City of Richmond 

2,198 2,058 (93.63%) 526 (24.45%) – 659 (30.42%) 

Census Tract 111, 

City of Richmond 

3,047 2,429 (79.72%) 798 (34.19%) – 449 (14.76%) 

Census Tract 201, 

City of Richmond 

1,627 1,580 (97.11%) 1,110 (68.22%) – 358 (22.15%) 

Census Tract 204, 

City of Richmond 

4,679 4,586 (98.01%) 1,807 (49.52%) – 680 (18.64%) 

Census Tract 205, 

City of Richmond 

3,695 1,636 (44.28%) 1,115 (30.18%) – 319 (8.67%) 

Census Tract 208, 

City of Richmond 

1,368 613 (44.81%) 142 (10.38%) – 172 (12.57%) 

Census Tract 211, 

City of Richmond 

1,382 1,196 (86.54%) 301 (22.10%) – 286 (20.69%) 

Census Tract 212, 

City of Richmond 

1,767 1,555 (88.00%) 227 (12.85%) – 245 (13.87%) 

Census Tract 301, 

City of Richmond 

2,898 2,852 (98.41%) 2,080 (71.77%) – 730 (25.28%) 

 Continued – Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. (see end of table for detailed notes.)
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-42 Community Impact Assessment 

Table 3-6: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Census Tract Total 

Population 

Minorities (%) Low-Income 

(%) 

Total LEP (%)* 

Language(s) 

Spoken 

Disabled (%)** 

Census Tract 302, 

City of Richmond 

2,512 1,219 (48.53%) 747 (37.80%) – 316 (12.66%) 

Census Tract 305, 

City of Richmond 

3,295 1,776 (53.90%) 1,304 (43.32%) 212 (6.68%) 

Chinese 

181 (5.60%) 

Census Tract 402, 

City of Richmond 

3,296 1,661 (50.39%) 1355 (45.70%) 83 (2.55%) 301 (9.13%) 

Census Tract 403, 

City of Richmond 

3,509 1,626 (46.34%) 403 (62.97%) 70 (1.99%) 110 (3.13%) 

Census Tract 404, 

City of Richmond 

3,717 1,045 (28.11%) 2,075 (56.77%) – 414 (11.14%) 

Census Tract 405, 

City of Richmond 

3,367 508 (15.09%) 552 (16.48%) – 365 (10.92%) 

Census Tract 406, 

City of Richmond 

1,756 259 (14.75%) 439 (25.00%) – 233 (13.27%) 

Census Tract 407, 

City of Richmond 

2,687 662 (24.64%) 305 (11.44%) 135 (5.33%) 154 (5.78%) 

Census Tract 408, 

City of Richmond 

1,679 310 (18.46%) 286 (17.03%) 172 (10.51%) 

Spanish 

176 (10.48%) 

Census Tract 409, 

City of Richmond 

2,708 482 (17.80%) 468 (17.35%) 51 (1.95%) 402 (14.93%) 

Census Tract 410, 

City of Richmond 

2,776 235 (8.47%) 263 (9.55%) – 196 (7.12%) 

Census Tract 411, 

City of Richmond 

4,339 1,084 (24.98%) 1,496 (34.48%) 85 (2.00%) 315 (7.26%) 

Census Tract 412, 

City of Richmond 

1,309 251 (19.17%) 511 (39.04%) – 86 (6.57%) 

Census Tract 413, 

City of Richmond 

2,952 2,322 (78.66%) 1,044 (35.37%) 108 (3.80%) 650 (22.02%) 

Census Tract 414, 

City of Richmond 

2,062 1,239 (60.09%) 402 (20.24%) – 326 (16.41%) 

Census Tract 416, 

City of Richmond 

1,482 723 (48.79%) 175 (12.19%) – 133 (8.97%) 

Census Tract 501, 

City of Richmond 

2,806 374 (13.33%) 289 (10.36%) – 336 (12.05%) 

Census Tract 502, 

City of Richmond 

2,844 187 (6.58%) 129 (4.54%) – 69 (2.43%) 

Census Tract 503, 

City of Richmond 

1,247 161 (12.91%) 86 (6.90%) – 110 (8.87%) 

Census Tract 506, 

City of Richmond 

2,474 118 (4.77%) 63 (2.55%) – 169 (6.83%) 

Census Tract 602, 

City of Richmond 

2,194 2,004 (91.34%) 627 (28.58%) – 651 (29.67%) 

Census Tract 604, 

City of Richmond 

5,292 4,487 (84.79%) 1,993 (37.85%) 109 (2.18%) 1,322 (25.25%) 

 Continued – Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. (see end of table for detailed notes.)
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-43 Community Impact Assessment 

Table 3-6: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Census Tract Total 

Population 

Minorities (%) Low-Income 

(%) 

Total LEP (%)* 

Language(s) 

Spoken 

Disabled (%)** 

Census Tract 605, 

City of Richmond 

6,328 3,454 (54.58%) 955 (15.58%) 111 (1.85%) 1,367 (22.40%) 

Census Tract 606, 

City of Richmond 

2,374 346 (14.57%) 83 (3.50%) 60 (2.68%) 143 (6.02%) 

Census Tract 607, 

City of Richmond 

5,110 4,758 (93.11%) 2,548 (49.99%) – 1,030 (20.16%) 

Census Tract 608, 

City of Richmond 

3,266 2,898 (88.73%) 983 (30.36%) 702 (24.38%) 

Spanish 

528 (16.39%) 

Census Tract 609, 

City of Richmond 

1,633 1,289 (78.93%) 590 (36.13%) 357 (23.27%) 

Spanish 

188 (12.05%) 

Census Tract 610, 

City of Richmond 

3,360 2,395 (71.28%) 1,151 (34.40%) – 317 (9.47%) 

Census Tract 706.01, 

City of Richmond 

6,367 5,922 (93.01%) 2,344 (37.64%) 2,345 (43.32%) 

Spanish 

987 (15.65%) 

Census Tract 706.02, 

City of Richmond 

2,432 2,034 (83.63%) 345 (14.22%) 135 (5.65%) 

Spanish 

496 (20.39%) 

Census Tract 709, 

City of Richmond 

6,834 5,579 (81.64%) 2,035 (30.65%) 301 (4.70%) 

Spanish 

1,403 (21.08%) 

Census Tract 710.02, 

City of Richmond 

3,390 2,805 (82.74%) 695 (20.50%) 405 (13.33%) 

Spanish (206) 

Korean (114) 

624 (18.41%) 

Census Tract 711, 

City of Richmond 

4,866 2,528 (51.95%) 398 (7.41%) 126 (2.73%) 783 (16.12%) 

Census Tract 1003, 

Chesterfield County 

1,844 991 (53.74%) 302 (16.38%) 98 (5.69%) 

Spanish 

337 (18.28%) 

Census Tract 1004.04, 

Chesterfield County 

2,500 1,726 (69.04%) 577 (23.28%) 874 (38.66%) 

Spanish 

315 (12.60%) 

Census Tract 1004.05, 

Chesterfield County 

2,373 1,624 (68.44%) 735 (30.97%) 697 (32.74%) 

Spanish 

257 (10.85%) 

Census Tract 1004.06, 

Chesterfield County 

1,301 1,003 (77.09%) 411 (31.59%) – 146 (11.22%) 

Census Tract 1004.07, 

Chesterfield County 

2,731 1,101 (40.31%) 334 (12.23%) 110 (4.09%) 584 (21.38%) 

Census Tract 1004.09, 

Chesterfield County 

6,174 1,383 (22.40%) 591 (9.59%) 169 (2.88%) 479 (7.76%) 

Census Tract 1008.04, 

Chesterfield County 

4,413 2,850 (64.58%) 429 (9.73%) 336 (7.92%) 

Gujarati (119) 

Vietnamese (116) 

494 (11.21%) 

Census Tract 1008.06, 

Chesterfield County 

3,525 2,568 (72.85%) 554 (15.95%) 332 (9.81%) 

Spanish 

500 (14.21%) 

Census Tract 1008.07, 

Chesterfield County 

1,818 1,072 (58.97%) 78 (4.31%) 96 (5.96%) 

Spanish 

224 (12.32%) 

Census Tract 1008.15, 

Chesterfield County 

4,098 1,484 (36.21%) 266 (6.50%) 134 (3.46%) 309 (7.63%) 

Census Tract 1008.16, 

Chesterfield County 

4,919 1,742 (35.41%) 224 (4.56%) 358 (7.92%) 

Spanish 

615 (12.50%) 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2009-2013 American Community Survey. 

Notes: Data for each demographic group are not mutually-exclusive and do not total 100. 

* Based on the population aged 5 years and over. In most census tracts, more than one LEP language is spoken. Where applicable, the 

most common LEP language(s) is listed. For census tracts where two LEP languages are common, both languages are listed with their 

respective number of speakers. 

** Census disability is based on the civilian non-institutionalized population with a self-identified disability. 

Totals less than 50 persons not shown. Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-44 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 3-2: Environmental Justice Census Tracts 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-45 Community Impact Assessment 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-1 Community Impact Assessment 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

4.1 ECONOMIC EFFECTS 

The Build Alternatives would have direct effects on economic activity through 

business/commercial relocations, as shown in Table 4-1. 

Table 4-1: Commercial Relocations by Build Alternative

Area Alternative 

Stafford Count

y

Hanover Count

y

Henrico Count

y

City of Richmond 

Total 

O GC GC GC GC S/W M/A O 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3B 1 0 1 

3C 0 1 1 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A 1 1 

5A–Ashcake 1 1 

5B 1 1 

5B–Ashcake 1 1 

5C 1 1 

5C–Ashcake 1 1 

5D–Ashcake 1 1 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to 

Centralia) 

6A 5 1 0 4 0 10 

6B–A-Line 5 2 4 7 0 18 

6B–S-Line 5 0 2 2 1 10 

6C 5 1 1 5 3 15 

6D 5 0 2 2 1 10 

6E 5 1 0 4 0 10 

6F 5 0 2 2 1 10 

6G 5 0 2 2 1 10 

This table includes only the Build Alternatives with commercial relocations. 

O=Other; GC=General Commercial; S/W=Storage/Warehousing; M/A=Manufacturing/Auto Repair 

4 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-2 Community Impact Assessment 

The nonresidential relocations were broken down into types of businesses with similar 

relocation/structural needs: general commercial, storage and warehousing, manufacturing, and 

other. The category “Other” includes an apartment building as well as a variety of government 

properties (city, county, or university-owned). The government properties include a Department 

of Motor Vehicles, Commonwealth of Virginia Workers’ Compensation Department, and City of 

Richmond Department of Public Works properties. The general commercial businesses within 

the Build Alternatives include technical services, and entertainment services. The warehousing 

and storage facilities include food and container storage. The manufacturing facilities includes 

auto service and repair, and electrical manufacturing and repair. 

In Alternative Area 5, the Town of Ashland could be adversely affected economically by Build 

Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake. There are few business 

relocations, due to these Build Alternatives, but the short-term effects of construction within 

town, particularly central downtown along Railroad Avenue and Center Street, could cause local 

businesses to suffer loss of commerce and, potentially, closure. In addition to the short-term 

effects of construction, Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake could close South 

Center Street between England Street and Maiden Street. Access to the businesses and residences 

would still be provided from other public rights-of-way. However, the long-term effects of the 

closure and change in access could also cause loss of commerce and potential closure of 

businesses. This in turn could cause negative effects on the economic vitality of downtown 

Ashland. 

Based on the number of nonresidential relocations and the types of businesses potentially being 

relocated, adequate replacement properties would be available for relocation purposes. The 

acquisition of right-of-way and the relocation of displaced persons and businesses would be 

conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition 

Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and 24 VAC 30 - 41. DRPT assures that relocation resources 

would be available to all displaced businesses and nonprofit entities without discrimination. 

4.2 NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY EFFECTS 

4.2.1 Community Effects 

DRPT assessed impacts to communities based on potential right-of-way acquisition of residences 

and community facilities, partial acquisitions of parcels, potential changes in community 

cohesion, changes in access to community facilities, and changes in access for emergency services. 

More-detailed information on right-of-way acquisition and relocation can be found in Section 4.4, 

Title VI and Environmental Justice. 

Effects based on changes to the transportation network are summarized in the next section and 

discussed in more detail in the Transportation Technical Report. 

The No Build Alternative would not require any right-of-way acquisition or result in any 

neighborhood and community effects. 

In Alternative Area 1 (Arlington), DRPT does not expect direct effects to communities from 

relocations and right-of-way acquisition. There are no relocations, and none of the Build 

Alternatives require more than 1.5 acres of right-of-way. There are no adverse effects to 

community facilities, access to these facilities, or access for emergency services.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-3 Community Impact Assessment 

In Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia), Build Alternative 2A would require two residential 

relocations in part of the Belmont Bay community along Railroad Avenue (Prince William 

County). Access to this community is currently through the condominiums at Belmont Bay and 

would not change under the Build Alternative 2A. DRPT has determined that there would be no 

adverse effects to community facilities, access to these facilities, or access for emergency services. 

The community of Brooke (Stafford County) would be affected by Build Alternative 2A. Partial 

acquisition of residential property would occur due to an additional roadway connection north 

of and parallel to the CSXT line to continue to provide access to the street network for residents 

via Brooke Road and Andrew Chapel Road. DRPT has determined that access to and from the 

area for emergency services, school transportation, and religious facilities on Andrew Chapel 

Road would not be adversely affected by Build Alternative 2A. Additional effects to this 

community include partial acquisition of residential property around the Eskimo Hill Road 

crossing of the CSXT line. 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), Build Alternatives 3A and 3B that pass through town would 

not require residential relocations, and only partial acquisition of primarily residential parcels 

would be required in the communities in this area. DRPT has determined that the Fredericksburg 

Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) would adversely affect the community of Little Falls (Stafford 

County). The adverse effects would be due to partial acquisition of residential parcels on Little 

Falls Road and Forest Lane Road, as well as an increase in the frequency of trains along the 

existing Dahlgren Spur. There are currently very few train movements on this line (one per day). 

Additional freight trains would use the bypass as part of future train operations. Existing 

crossings of these roads would be improved with median treatments to provide additional safety 

measures for residents. 

The communities that would be affected by the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) 

include the residential development along Sandy Lane Drive, Swan Lane, Thornton Rolling Road, 

and Patriot Lane and the community of Summit (Spotsylvania County). As rural communities, 

they may not be as well defined as urban or suburban communities, but they would still be 

adversely affected by residential relocations. The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) 

would bisect the residential development along Thornton Rolling Road and Patriot Lane. 

Community cohesion could be adversely affected by this alternative None of these communities 

are currently on a rail line, and the introduction of a rail line and freight rail traffic would 

undoubtedly result in an adverse effect on this currently rural area. DRPT does not, however, 

anticipate adverse effects to community facilities, access to these facilities, or access for emergency 

services since roadway crossings along the new alignment bypass would be grade-separated. 

In Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia), to the east and south of Carmel Church and Patersons 

Corner, access to the residential development along Railroad Lane (Caroline County) would not 

be affected by Build Alternative 4A since only one low-volume roadway (Colemans Mill Road) 

would be closed. DRPT has determined that there would be no adverse effects to community 

facilities, access to these facilities, or access for emergency services. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), within the Town of Ashland, the proximity of the community to 

the existing CSXT rail line makes adverse effects to the community difficult to avoid. The Build 

Alternatives that pass through town (Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 

5D–Ashcake) would have similar effects on the community. There would be no residential 

relocations, one commercial relocation, and partial acquisitions of parcels. The communities 

affected include downtown Ashland, southern Ashland, Gwathmey, and Elmont. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-4 Community Impact Assessment 

The Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would result in 21 residential 

relocations, 1 community facility relocation (Calvary Pentecostal Tabernacle and camp), 2 

commercial relocations, and partial acquisition of more than 50 parcels. The communities affected 

include Blunts Bridge Road, Independence Road, Ashcake Road and Wildwood Boulevard, and 

Elmont. As noted above, o community facility would be adversely affected, but DRPT does not 

expect any other adverse effects to community facilities, access to community facilities, or access 

for emergency services since roadway crossings along the new alignment bypass would be gradeseparated. 

Within Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), direct effects to communities from residential relocations 

would occur in Laurel Park in Henrico County and in McGuire in the City of Richmond. The 

Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6A, 

6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) would affect both communities through these residential relocations and 

the relocation of a church, the Rock Christian Center. The Build Alternatives that use the S-Line 

between Main Street Station and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) would 

only affect the community of Laurel Park. One community facility would be adversely affected, 

but no other adverse effects to community facilities, access to these facilities, or access for 

emergency services are expected. 

4.2.2 Effects from Changes to the Transportation Network 

Effects on communities from changes to the transportation network have been assessed based on 

physical changes to the roadway network and increased passenger rail service in the DC2RVA 

corridor. The methodology used to determine the proposed crossing improvements at each atgrade crossing is provided in the Transportation Technical Report. Types of crossing treatments 

were identified at each at-grade highway-rail crossing to improve safety and road and rail traffic 

flow. Most existing public at-grade crossings are proposed to remain at-grade with the addition 

of four-quadrant gates or gates with center median treatment; there are fewer locations with 

proposed grade separations and closures. New grade separations would reduce vehicular delay 

at those locations. DRPT evaluated all crossing improvement effects on connectivity and 

accessibility and completed a crossing closure diversion analysis to determine the effects the 

proposed roadway closures would have on traffic operations. Crossings proposed to be closed 

are typically lower volume roadways with nearby alternate new or existing access across the rail 

corridor, or were determined due to safety concerns and/or the requirements of the physical or 

operational infrastructure of the Project. All new crossings of roads as part of the Build 

Alternatives would be grade-separated, except for two new at-grade roadway crossings that are 

proposed as part of the station improvement designs for Build Alternative 6C. Additionally, some 

existing public at-grade crossings would be grade-separated which would reduce vehicular delay 

at those locations. 

In Alternative Area 1 (Arlington), DRPT does not expect direct effects to the local transportation 

network as a result of construction of the proposed Project. because there are no at-grade 

crossings in this alternative area

In Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia), Build Alternative 2A would not change access to the 

communities of Harbor View and Colchester (Fairfax County), via Furnace Road, and would 

therefore not adversely affect these communities. The community of Brooke (Stafford County) 

would be affected by Build Alternative 2A. Mount Hope Church Road would be closed at the 

CSXT rail line, and an additional roadway connection would be added north of and parallel to 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-5 Community Impact Assessment 

the CSXT line to provide access to the street network for residents via Brooke Road and Andrew 

Chapel Road. More detail appears in the Transportation Technical Report. DRPT has determined 

that access to and from the area for emergency services, school transportation, and the religious 

facilities in Brooke would not be adversely affected by Build Alternative 2A. 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), DRPT expects that the Project will result in direct effects 

to the transportation network. The improved station at Fredericksburg would provide better 

access to the transportation network with a larger station building, additional parking, and 

improved handicapped parking., which are all positive effects. The end of Patriot Lane 

(Spotsylvania County) would also be acquired as part of right-of-way acquisition for the 

Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C). The roadway would terminate at the new wye 

junction required for joining the bypass to the main line. 

In Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia), the Colemans Mill Road (Caroline County) crossing of 

the CSXT rail line would be closed. under Build Alternative 4A. DRPT does not expect adverse 

effects to access for emergency response, school transportation, or the roadway network as a 

result of this road closure. The north side of Colemans Mill Road would continue to be accessed 

by Rogers Clark Boulevard. The south side would maintain access through Dry Bridge Road to 

Colemans Mill Road. Access to the eastern section of Railroad Lane (Caroline County) would 

remain in place under Build Alternative 4A. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), closure of College Avenue/Henry Clay Street would occur under 

Build Alternatives 5A, 5B, and 5C. if the existing platforms at the Ashland Station were extended. 

DRPT expects that there would be no adverse effects to access to community facilities or for 

emergency response, school transportation, or access to the roadway network as a result of this 

road closure. West Vaughan Road would provide an alternative for emergency medical services 

and would be improved with a grade separation under the that pass through town (Build 

Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake). This would improve safety and 

emergency response time. The Volunteer Rescue Squad on Duncan Street would still have access 

to both sides of the rail line, as would the Ashland Police Department on England Street. Closure 

of Independence Road at West Patrick Henry Road would occur under the Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake). An alternate alignment that uses existing West Patrick Henry 

Road and Blanton Road would be less than 1 mile. 

DRPT does, however, expect effects due to road closure in Ashland. Closure of the northbound 

portion of South Railroad Avenue between England Street and Maiden Lane, due to the addition 

of a third track, under Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, would adversely 

affect the community of Ashland and, in particular, the community cohesion of the area of town 

south of England Street. 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), direct effects to the transportation network are expected as a 

result of construction of the Build Alternatives. The station improvements at Staples Mill would 

provide expanded mobility and better access to the transportation network with an expanded 

building, additional parking, and a designated pick-up and drop-off area., which would all be 

positive effects of the Project. Some at-grade roadway crossings would also be closed under the 

Build Alternative, which are summarized in the following paragraphs. 

The Boulevard single-station alternative (Build Alternative 6B–S-Line) includes the closure of the 

Ownby Lane/Hermitage Road intersection in the Diamond/Newtowne West area to 

accommodate the Hermitage Road grade separation. The area is generally in commercial and 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-6 Community Impact Assessment 

industrial uses. Access to Ownby Lane would still be available via Overbrook Road and Botetourt 

Street. 

The Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) include the closure of Bassett Avenue in Westover. Access to the east 

side of this crossing would still be available via Westover Hills Boulevard. Access to the west side 

of the crossing would still be available through Jahnke Road, which would be improved with 

four-quadrant gates to increase safety at the crossing. 

The Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) include the closure of t Terminal Avenue at-grade crossing in Hickory 

Hill. Access on the eastern side of Terminal Avenue is available via Belt Boulevard. Access on the 

western side of Terminal Avenue is available via Hopkins Road. A signal study of the intersection 

of Terminal Avenue and Hopkins Road would also occur under these alternatives. 

The Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) include the closure of Thurston Road in the community of Chimney 

Corner. Access to the western side of Thurston Road would still be available via Hopkins Road. 

Access to the eastern side of Thurston Road would still be available via Dorsey Road. Access to 

and from the community for emergency services and school transportation would not be 

adversely affected by the alternatives. 

The Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street Station and Centralia (Build 

Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) include the closure of St James Street and North Second 

Street/Valley Road between the communities of Gilpin and Southern Barton Heights. Based on 

the proximity to and connections to the existing roadway network via North First Street and 

North Fifth Street, access to and from the communities for emergency services and school 

transportation would not be adversely affected by the alternatives. 

The Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street Station and Centralia (Build 

Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) include the closure of the at-grade crossing at Dale 

Avenue/Trenton Avenue in the community of Ampthill Heights. It primarily provides access to 

the DuPont plant, and alternate access is available 

 The Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street Station and Centralia (Build 

Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) include the closure of Brinkley Road in Chimney Corner. 

Access to Brinkley Road would still be available via Dorsey Road and Thurston Road via Hopkins 

Road. 

Old Lane in the community of Centralia would be closed under all Build Alternatives. Access to 

and from the community for school transportation would not be adversely affected by the 

alternatives. An increase in response time for emergency services could occur if the response were 

from Fire Station 17 in Centralia, but it would be less than a 5-minute increase. If the response 

were from Fire Station 1, there would be no difference in response time. 

4.2.3 Community Facilities and Services 

The No Build Alternative would have no direct effects on community facilities. 

In Alternative Areas 1 through 4, the Build Alternatives would have no direct effects on 

community facilities. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-7 Community Impact Assessment 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), one community facility, the Calvary Pentecostal Tabernacle 

camp in Hanover County, would be relocated due to Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake. The 

facility would be relocated in a manner that would enable access to remain similar to the existing 

access. 

Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, and 5B–Ashcake. would require a minor temporary 

easement of two parcels from the Gwathmey Baptist Church. The temporary easement would not 

affect activities at the church, and DRPT does not expect the temporary easement to have adverse 

effects to the church. 

All Build Alternatives would require a temporary easement from Patrick Henry Branch of the 

YMCA in Ashland due to alignment changes along Ashcake Road. DRPT does not expect the 

temporary easement to have adverse effects to the facility. 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), the Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard 

and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) would require the relocation of the 

Rock Christian Center as a part of the grade separation of the intersection of Broad Rock 

Boulevard and the CSXT rail line. The facility would be relocated in a manner that would enable 

access to remain similar to the existing access. In addition, partial acquisition of the parcel 

containing Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Affairs Medical Center would also occur in this 

location. The partial acquisition of this parcel is minor in nature (0.10 acre) and would not affect 

the functioning of the center. 

4.3 RIGHT-OF-WAY AND RELOCATIONS 

The acquisition of right-of-way and the relocation of displacees would take place in accordance with 

the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 

amended (42 U.S.C 4601). Data and information were collected on social demographics and 

potential relocations, including individual tax parcel data, within the Build Alternatives. This 

information was compiled from city/county tax parcel databases, United States Geological 

Survey (USGS) mapping, aerial photos, the United States Census website, GIS databases, 

conceptual drawings/engineering, and field inspections. All field inspections were conducted 

from within public right-of-way. Given that potential property effects are only being estimated 

at this time, local citizens/property owners were not contacted for any data to determine family 

size, household size, property value, owner/renter status, or any other demographic information. 

Similarly, individual businesses potentially subject to relocation were not contacted to determine 

their number of employees. These data were estimated using the sources noted above. 

Potential relocations were determined based on overlaying the estimated Limits of Disturbance 

(LOD) of the Build Alternatives on county/city tax parcel digital data through the use of GIS 

(Table 4-2). The individual parcel data were then compiled, and the area that may be acquired 

with implementation of a Build Alternative was computed. Potential relocations were identified 

as residential (individuals/families), community facilities, and commercial. The relocations can 

be classified as total acquisitions or partial acquisitions: 

 Total Acquisition: This occurs when the primary improvement (house, business, 

nonprofit, or farm) is within the right-of-way or access to the parcel is removed and cannot 

be restored. The owner is compensated for the fair market value of the entire parcel and 

provided relocation assistance. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-8 Community Impact Assessment 

 Partial Acquisition: This occurs when a portion of a parcel is acquired and that portion 

does not include a primary improvement. The owner is compensated for the fair market 

value of the portion of their parcel and minor improvements that would be acquired. 

This document represents a preliminary examination of the potential relocations; therefore, direct 

contact with individual residents, landowners, and business owners did not occur. Coordination 

with affected property owners will begin with the Public Hearing and continue into the final 

design process. Social and economic characteristics of the displaced population are based on 

United States Census data from the 2009-2013 American Community Survey (ACS) and from the 

National Center for Education Statistics. 

Residential relocations by Build Alternative are detailed in Table 4-2. The No Build Alternative 

requires no residential relocations. Specific communities within which these relocations occur 

were discussed in Section 4.11.2.1. 

In Alternative Area 1 (Arlington), Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C would have no residential 

relocations. 

In Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia), the single Build Alternative 2A would have two 

residential relocations. 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) would 

have 19 residential relocations. 

In Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia), the single Build Alternative 4A would have no 

residential relocations. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) 

would have 21 residential relocations. These alternatives would relocate one community facility, 

the Calvary Pentecostal Tabernacle camp in Hanover County. This facility would be relocated 

due to severing the parcel and lack of access to the remaining part of the parcel. 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), residential relocations would occur under all Build 

Alternatives. The Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build 

Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, and 6E) would have 12 relocations. Build Alternative 6C, which also 

uses the A-Line, has 12 single-family residence relocations and an apartment building relocation 

with 100 units. The Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street Station and 

Centralia (Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) would have seven relocations. 

Right-of-way acquisitions may be further minimized as design progresses. Easements may be 

used in lieu of acquiring new right-of-way for some properties. Temporary easements may also 

be needed on adjacent property to gain access to the existing rail line and right-of-way during 

construction activities and for construction staging. If necessary, these temporary easements 

could be obtained for a short duration, and the land would be returned to its original condition 

before easement lease termination. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-9 Community Impact Assessment 

Table 4-2: Residential Relocations by Build Alternative 

Alternative Area Alternative 

City/County 

Arlington County 

City of Alexandria Fairfax Count

y

Prince William Count

y

Stafford County City of Fredericksburg Spotsylvania Count

y

Caroline County Hanover County Henrico County City of Richmond Chesterfield Count

y

Total 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge 

Approach) 

1A 0 0 

1B 0 0 

1C 0 0 

Area 2: Northern 

Virginia (Long 

Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A 0 0 2 0 2 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A 0 0 0 0 

3B 0 0 0 0 

3C 1 18 0 19 

Area 4: Central 

Virginia 

(Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

4A 0 0 0 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A 0 0 

5A–Ashcake 0 0 

5B 0 0 

5B–Ashcake 0 0 

5C 21 21 

5C–Ashcake 21 21 

5D–Ashcake 0 0 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A 7 5 0 12 

6B–A-Line 7 5 0 12 

6B–S-Line 7 0 0 7 

6C 7 105 0 112 

6D 7 0 0 7 

6E 7 5 0 12 

6F 7 0 0 7 

6G 7 0 0 7 

Source: City/County Tax Assessment Databases. Preliminary Engineering Limits of Disturbance, HDR, 2016. 

 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-10 Community Impact Assessment 

DRPT has the ability and, if necessary, is willing to provide housing of last resort, including the 

purchase of land or dwellings; repair of existing dwellings to meet decent, safe, and sanitary 

conditions; relocation or remodeling of dwellings purchased by DRPT; or construction of new 

dwellings. DRPT assures that all displaced families and individuals would be relocated to 

suitable replacement housing, and that all replacement housing would be fair housing available 

to all persons without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and would be within 

the financial means of the displacees. Each person would be given enough time to negotiate for 

and obtain possession of replacement housing. No residential occupants would be required to 

move from property needed for the Build Alternatives until comparable decent, safe, and sanitary 

replacement dwellings have been made available to them. 

The acquisition of right-of-way and the relocation of displacees would be in accordance with the 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. 

Assurance is given that relocation resources would be available to all residential, business, farm, 

and nonprofit displacees without discrimination. 

4.4 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

The environmental justice analysis is based on whether the percentage of minority or low-income 

populations within a census tract impacted by an alternative is greater than the percentage of 

minority or low-income populations within that census tract’s county. For example, Fairfax 

County has a minority population of 46.11 percent. If the percentage of minority population in a 

census tract in Fairfax County is higher than 46.11 percent, the tract has the potential to contain 

an environmental justice population. Instead of a regional population across the entire corridor, 

this method provides a more accurate representation of potential environmental justice 

populations in diverse areas such as the DC2RVA corridor. Data and information from other 

sources, such as free and reduced school lunch programs and the public involvement process, 

have also been used to refine the identification of potential environmental justice communities 

not identified by United States Census data. The number of relocations, changes in community 

cohesion, relocations of community facilities, changes of access to these facilities, changes in 

response times for emergency services, and noise and vibration effects are all examined to assess 

effects. The trigger for an environmental justice effect is defined as “disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects” (EO 12898). These effects are then compared to 

impacts in those census tracts that do not meet the thresholds for environmental justice 

populations. 

The U.S. DOT definition of Adverse Effects is “the totality of significant individual or cumulative 

human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, which 

may include, but are not limited to: bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or death; air, noise, and 

water pollution and soil contamination; destruction or disruption of man-made or natural 

resources; destruction or diminution of aesthetic values; destruction or disruption of community 

cohesion or a community's economic vitality; destruction or disruption of the availability of 

public and private facilities and services; vibration; adverse employment effects; displacement of 

persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations; increased traffic congestion, isolation, 

exclusion or separation of minority or low-income individuals within a given community or from 

the broader community; and the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of, 

benefits of DOT programs, policies, or activities” (U.S. DOT, 5610.2[a]). 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-11 Community Impact Assessment 

The U.S. DOT definition of disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and lowincome populations is an Adverse Effect that: 

 “is predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population, or 

 will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is 

appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be 

suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income population” (U.S. DOT, 

5610.2[a]). 

4.4.1 Corridor-Wide Impacts 

The No Build Alternative requires no right-of-way acquisition; therefore, it requires no 

relocations and has no direct adverse impacts to Title VI or environmental justice populations. 

Under the No Build Alternative, beneficial impacts also would not be realized. Congestion and 

lack of mobility would continue to affect individuals and communities. These problems also 

would continue to impact businesses and economic activity along the DC2RVA corridor, which 

would, in turn, result in additional impacts to individuals and communities. 

Under all Build Alternatives, more-frequent and more-reliable intercity passenger rail service in 

the DC2RVA corridor would provide better access and mobility to all communities and 

populations, including environmental justice populations. Access to a wider geographic area for 

educational, medical, and employment opportunities would be improved as well. 

4.4.2 Community-Level Impacts 

United States Census information and preliminary relocation data was supplemented with 

information from public involvement activities for this Project and from federal education 

statistical information, and regional and local agency planning information on communities. 

4.4.2.1 Relocations and Displacements 

Seven of the Build Alternatives that significantly alter the natural or railroad operating 

environments on the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C), Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), or CSXT A-Line in the City of Richmond (Build Alternatives 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) have the potential to impact six census tracts with low-income and 

minority populations, out of a total of 10 census tracts with residential relocations. (Table 4-3 and 

Figure 4-1) Implementation of a Build Alternative would impact communities with 

environmental justice populations by requiring the acquisition of right-of-way and the 

displacement of residences. DRPT considers displacements to be adverse effects. 

In addition to the poverty information that appears in Chapter 3, median household income data 

appears in Table 4-3. The Title 1 status of schools within a particular census tract also appears in 

Table 4-3. Median household income can appear to be high for the individual census tracts. This 

is due to the use of the median of all household income. For example, the city of Richmond has 

over 25 percent of the population in poverty, but the median household income is $40,496, which 

could be perceived as not in poverty. The use of the Title 1 school information balances this data 

to give a more complete picture of the area. When 40 percent or more students of a particular 

school are eligible for free and reduced-price school meals and apply for the meal program, the 

school can apply for Federal funding for school programs through what is still called “Title 1”, 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-12 Community Impact Assessment 

originally from Title 1 of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Some schools have 

more than 40 percent of students eligible but do not have a program. Elementary schools have 

the smallest attendance zones and a tighter geographic area of analysis; therefore, these schools 

were used for Title 1 school identification. The school zones for the residential relocations were 

identified and then the Title 1 status of a particular school was researched through the National 

Center for Education Statistics. 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) has the 

potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects on potential environmental justice 

populations. All 19 residential relocations would occur in census tracts that have low-income 

populations, and 18 would occur in a census tract with low-income and minority populations. In 

the latter tract, in Spotsylvania County, the elementary school that students in the area are zoned 

for, Cedar Forest, is also a Title 1 school based on the high percentage of students that receive free 

and reduced-price lunches. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) 

does not have the potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental 

justice populations. Of the 21 residential relocations, only five would occur in a census tract that 

has high low-income and minority populations. 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), three of the four Build Alternatives that use the A-Line 

between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, and 6E) would have five 

residential relocations that occur in census tracts with high minority populations (Table 4-3). 

However, this is not disproportionate since seven potential residential relocations would also 

occur with these alternatives in census tracts with lower proportions of the population that are 

low-income or minority. The fourth Build Alternative that uses the A-Line (Build Alternative 6C) 

would have 112 relocations, 105 of which would be in census tracts with high minority or lowincome populations. DRPT has, therefore, determined that Build Alternative 6C has the potential 

for disproportionately high and adverse effects on potential environmental justice populations. 

The Build Alternative 6C relocations include a 100-unit apartment building. 

The potential impacts to environmental justice populations could be avoided and/or minimized 

by using a Build Alternative that does not have relocations occurring in a census tract with high 

percentages of low-income and minority populations. 

4.4.2.2 Noise and Vibration 

The Build Alternatives were also analyzed to determine any disproportionate and adverse noise 

and vibration effects to environmental justice populations. The potential noise receptors that were 

assessed for this analysis were residential receptors and other places for sleeping (Category 2) 

and were those receptors with moderate and severe impacts. A full discussion of noise impacts 

appears in the Noise and Vibration Technical Report. 

In Alternative Area 1 (Arlington), there are no affected noise receptors. 

In Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia), there are more than 700 noise receptors affected by the 

single Build Alternative 2A. Fifty-five (55) percent of these noise receptors occur in census tracts 

with a high proportion of minority and low-income populations in the communities of 

Springfield Forest, Lorton, Colchester, Marumsco Acres, Marumsco Woods, and Leeland. This 

Build Alternative would not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on potential 

environmental justice populations in these communities.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-13 Community Impact Assessment 

Table 4-3: Residential Relocations by Environmental Justice Census Tracts 

Alternative 

Area 

Alternative 

City/County Prince William County Stafford County 

Spotsylvania County Hanover County Henrico County City of Richmond 

Tract 9001 Tract 105.04 Tract 202.05 Tract 3205 Tract 3204 Tract 2005.03 Tract 2009.06 Tract 402 Tract 706.02 Tract 710.02 

Total 

Area 2: Northern 

Virginia (Long 

Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A 2 2 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3C 1 18 19 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5C 16 5 21 

5C–Ashcake 16 5 21 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to 

Centralia) 

6A 3 4 0 4 1 12 

6B–A-Line 3 4 0 4 1 12 

6B–S-Line 3 4 0 0 0 7 

6C 3 4 100* 4 1 112 

6D 3 4 0 0 0 7 

6E 3 4 0 4 1 12 

6F 3 4 0 0 0 7 

6G 3 4 0 0 0 7 

% Minorities in City/County 52 33 28 15 44 61 

% Minorities in Census Tract 42 9 36 7 17 20 25 50 84 83 

% Low-Income in City/County 6 5 8 5 11 26 

% Low-Income in Census Tract 5 10 9 2 10 10 6 46 14 21 

Median Household Income in City/ 

County 

$98,071 $97,110 $78,345 $75,070 $61,048 $40,496 

Median Household Income in 

Census Tract 

$112,14

3 

$75,025 $91,917 $77,054 $71,350 $55,625 $72,297 $30,802 $48,047 $31,767 

Title 1 Elementary School Yes No Yes No** Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 

Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2009-2013. National Center for Education Statistics, School Year 2014-2015. 

Notes: Above 50%; greater than respective jurisdiction. *This is an apartment building with 100 units. No** = The elementary school that 

the residences are zoned for does not have a Title 1 program but does have enough children attending (>40%) to qualify the school for a 

program. Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake have no residential relocations and 

therefore do not appear in this table. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-14 Community Impact Assessment 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), there are less than 100 noise receptors affected by Build 

Alternatives 3A and 3B; however, 88 percent of these occur in census tracts with a high proportion 

of minority and low-income populations. These occur in the communities of Mayfield, Hazel Hill, 

Patriot Lane, Summit, and Claiborne Crossing. This would be a disproportionately high and 

adverse effect on potential environmental justice populations in these communities. There are 

almost 4,000 noise receptors affected by the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C), 

primarily due to the addition of freight trains along the new bypass. Forty-five (45) percent of 

these noise receptors occur in census tracts with a high proportion of minority and low-income 

populations. The affected receptors occur throughout the entire bypass, not just clustered in one 

community. This alternative would not have a disproportionate effect on environmental justice 

populations. Mitigation for these effects could include noise barriers for affected receptors; 

however, detailed recommendations for noise mitigation will be developed during the final 

design process. 

In Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia), there are less than 100 noise receptors affected by the 

single Build Alternative 4A. Seventy-nine (79) percent of these occur in census tracts with a high 

proportion of minority and low-income populations in the communities of Claiborne, Woodford, 

Milford, Penola, and Doswell. This would be a disproportionately high and adverse effect on 

potential environmental justice populations in these communities. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), there are almost 160 noise receptors affected by Build 

Alternatives that pass through town (Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 

5D–Ashcake); however, 80 percent of these occur in census tracts with a high proportion of 

minority and low-income populations. These occur in the communities of downtown Ashland, 

Gwathmey, and Elmont. There are more than 300 noise receptors affected by the Ashland Bypass 

(Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake). Forty-six (46) percent of these occur in census tracts 

with a high proportion of minority and low-income populations; therefore, the Ashland Bypass 

(Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would not have a disproportionately high and adverse 

impact on potential environmental justice populations. The Build Alternatives that pass through 

town (Build Alternatives5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake) would have a 

disproportionately high and adverse effect on potential environmental justice populations in 

these communities. 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), noise receptors affected by the Build Alternatives range from 

approximately 310 to 440. The Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and 

Centralia (Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) affect approximately 400 noise receptors 

on the A-line; 30 percent of these occur in census tracts with a high proportion of minority and 

low-income populations in the communities of Cedarhurst, Forest View, Belt Center, and 

Chimney Corner. Three of the four Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street 

Station and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, and 6F) affect approximately 440 noise 

receptors on the S-line; 54 percent of these occur in census tracts with a high proportion of 

minority and low-income populations in the communities of Newtowne West, Chamberlayne, 

Gilpin, Davee Gardens, and Bellwood. The fourth Build Alternative that uses the S-Line (Build 

Alternative 6G) affects approximately 310 noise receptors. Thirty-five (35) percent of these occur 

in census tracts with a high proportion of minority and low-income populations, and they occur 

in the communities previously listed for both the A-Line and the S-Line. None of the Build 

Alternatives in Alternative Area 6 would have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on 

potential environmental justice populations in these communities. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-15 Community Impact Assessment 

Figure 4-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-16 Community Impact Assessment 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-17 Community Impact Assessment 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-18 Community Impact Assessment 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-19 Community Impact Assessment 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-20 Community Impact Assessment 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-21 Community Impact Assessment 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-22 Community Impact Assessment 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-23 Community Impact Assessment 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-24 Community Impact Assessment 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-25 Community Impact Assessment 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-26 Community Impact Assessment 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-27 Community Impact Assessment 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-28 Community Impact Assessment 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-29 Community Impact Assessment 

 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-30 Community Impact Assessment 

4.5 PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 

Each at-grade highway−rail crossing was analyzed to determine which safety mechanisms or 

treatments would be proposed as part of the Build Alternatives. These treatments include grade 

separation, closure/consolidation, four-quadrant gates, median treatment, other treatment, or no 

action. All roadways that would be retained across the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 

3C) and the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would be grade-separated. 

There would be two new at-grade crossings under the single-station alternative in Richmond at 

Broad Street (Build Alternative 6C). The Project would improve safety of the private at-grade 

crossings with either locking gates or signalized four-quadrant gates and would improve safety 

at the pedestrian at-grade crossings. 

Safety of the existing public at-grade crossings in the DC2RVA corridor would be improved as 

part of the Build Alternatives (Transportation Technical Report). 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 5-1 Community Impact Assessment 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

Table 5-1 presents a summary of the potential socio-economic impacts for each of the build 

alternatives. 

In Areas 1 and 2 (Arlington and Northern Virginia), the build alternatives would have minimal 

direct adverse social and economic impacts. 

In Area 3 (Fredericksburg), Build Alternatives 3A and 3B would have few direct adverse social 

and economic impacts. Build Alternative 3C would have 19 residential relocations in two census 

tracts with potentially disproportionate relocation effects on environmental justice populations. 

In Area 4 (Central Virginia), Build Alternative 4A would have minimal direct adverse social and 

economic impacts. 

In Area 5 (Ashland), Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

would have similar direct social and economic effects; these effects would be less than those 

under Build Alternatives 5C and 5c–Ashcake. Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake would have 

direct effects to communities outside of town and removed from existing rail traffic. 

In Area 6 (Richmond), Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E have similar social impacts, 

with 6B–A-Line and 6C having the greatest economic impacts due to relocations. Build 

Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G have less social and economic impacts. 

Table 5-1: Summary of Impacts within Build Alternatives 

Area Alternative Residential 

Relocations 

Business 

Relocations 

Community 

Facility 

Relocations 

Census Tracts with 

Residential 

Relocations and 

Potential EJ 

Populations 

Area 1: 

Arlington (Long Bridge 

Approach) 

1A 0 0 0 0 

1B 0 0 0 0 

1C 0 0 0 0 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2A 2 0 0 0 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A 0 0 0 0 

3B 0 1 0 0 

3C 19 2 0 2 

 Continued

5 
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 5-2 Community Impact Assessment 

Table 5-1: Summary of Impacts within Build Alternatives 

Area Alternative Residential 

Relocations 

Business 

Relocations 

Community 

Facility 

Relocations 

Census Tracts with 

Residential 

Relocations and 

Potential EJ 

Populations 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

4A 0 0 0 0 

Area 5: 

Ashland (Doswell to I295) 

5A 0 1 0 0 

5A–Ashcake 0 1 0 0 

5B 0 1 0 0 

5B–Ashcake 0 1 0 0 

5C 21 1 1 1 

5C–Ashcake 21 1 1 1 

5D–Ashcake 0 1 0 0 

Area 6: 

Richmond (I-295 to 

Centralia) 

6A 12 10 1 2 

6B–A-Line 12 18 1 2 

6B–S-Line 7 10 0 0 

6C 112 15 1 3 

6D 7 10 0 0 

6E 12 10 1 2 

6F 7 10 0 0 

6G 7 10 0 0 

Source: City and County Land Use GIS databases, Limits of Disturbance, HDR, 2016. 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-1 Community Impact Assessment 

MITIGATION 

6.1 ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

The build alternatives would have direct effects on economic activity through 

business/commercial relocations. The acquisition of right-of-way and the relocation of displaced 

businesses and government properties would be conducted in accordance with the Uniform 

Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. Assurance 

is given that relocation resources would be available to all business and nonprofit displacees 

without discrimination. Right-of-way acquisitions may be further minimized as design 

progresses. Easements may be used in lieu of acquiring new right-of-way for some properties. 

Temporary easements may also be needed on adjacent property to gain access to the existing rail 

line and right-of-way during construction activities and for construction staging. If necessary, 

these temporary easements could be obtained for a short duration, and the land would be 

returned to its original condition prior to easement lease termination 

6.2 COMMUNITY COHESION 

There are several communities expected to have community cohesion affected by a build 

alternative (Table 6-1). Except for the relocation of Calvary Pentecostal Tabernacle camp in 

Ashland and the Rock Christian Center in McGuire, all the build alternatives have no adverse 

effects to community facilities, access to these facilities, or access for emergency services. 

Nevertheless, a dedicated point-of-contact or ombudsman could be available for community 

concerns and issues throughout the remaining project process, most particularly during 

construction. This could address issues such as maintenance of existing school routes and 

emergency services response, access to community facilities, relocation issues, and any other 

environmental issues that arise during the remaining process and that affect the communities. 

6.3 RIGHT-OF-WAY AND RELOCATIONS 

DRPT has the ability and, if necessary, is willing to provide housing of last resort, including the 

purchase of land or dwellings; repair of existing dwellings to meet decent, safe, and sanitary 

conditions; relocation or remodeling of dwellings purchased by DRPT; or construction of new 

dwellings. Assurance is given that all displaced families and individuals would be relocated to 

suitable replacement housing, and that all replacement housing would be fair housing available 

to all persons without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and would be within 

the financial means of the displacees. Each person would be given sufficient time to negotiate for 

and obtain possession of replacement housing. No residential occupants would be required to 

move from property needed for the build alternatives until comparable decent, safe, and sanitary 

replacement dwellings have been made available to them. 

6 
MITIGATION 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-2 Community Impact Assessment 

Table 6-1: Community Cohesion Effects 

Area Alternative Communities Affected 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 1A, 1B, 1C None 

Area 2: Northern Virginia (Long Bridge to 

Dahlgren Spur) 

2A Brooke, Eskimo Hill Road 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A None 

3B None 

3C Little Falls, Sandy Lane Drive, Swan Lane, Thornton 

Rolling Road, Patriot Lane 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 4A None 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 5A Ashland, Gwathmey, Elmont 

5A–Ashcake Ashland, Gwathmey, Elmont 

5B Ashland, Gwathmey, Elmont 

5B–Ashcake Ashland, Gwathmey, Elmont 

5C Ashland, Gwathmey, Elmont, Blunts Bridge Road, 

Independence Road, Ashcake Road/Wildwood 

Boulevard 

5C–Ashcake Ashland, Gwathmey, Elmont, Blunts Bridge Road, 

Independence Road, Ashcake Road/Wildwood 

Boulevard 

5D–Ashcake Ashland, Gwathmey, Elmont 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 6A Laurel Park, McGuire 

6B–A-Line Laurel Park, McGuire 

6B–S-Line Laurel Park 

6C Laurel Park, McGuire 

6D Laurel Park 

6E Laurel Park, McGuire 

6F Laurel Park 

6G Laurel Park 

The acquisition of right-of-way and the relocation of displacees would be in accordance with the 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. 

Assurance is given that relocation resources would be available to all residential, business, farm, 

and nonprofit displacees without discrimination. 

6.4 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

The primary effects on Title VI and environmental justice populations are through residential 

relocations. Build Alternatives 3C, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E have the potential 

to impact six census tracts with low-income and minority populations, out of a total of ten census 
MITIGATION 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-3 Community Impact Assessment 

tracts with residential relocations. The majority of effects to potential environmental justice 

populations occurs in Spotsylvania and Hanover counties in Areas 3 and 5 and the city of 

Richmond in Area 6. In all these areas, there are other build alternatives which would result in 

avoiding the potentially disproportionate high and adverse effects on environmental justice 

populations. In addition, public outreach has been integral to the project since the Project kickoff in the Fall of 2014 (Chapter 6 of the Draft EIS). DRPT launched a dedicated project website 

and social media accounts in October 2014. Newspaper and on-line advertising was in both 

English and Spanish for the project kick-off and all subsequent public outreach milestones and 

events. Public outreach has included public meetings, a project mailing list, newsletters, small 

group information meetings, and a continued presence on social media (i.e., project website, 

twitter, facebook). In a manner similar to community cohesion, a dedicated point-of-contact or 

ombudsman could be available for concerns and issues related to the environmental justice 

populations throughout the remaining project process. 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 7-1 Community Impact Assessment 

REFERENCES 

U.S. Census Bureau. 1991. 1990 U.S. Decennial Census. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. 2000 U.S. Decennial Census. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. 2010 U.S. Decennial Census. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. American Community Survey 2009-2013. Washington, D.C. 

Virginia Employment Commission. 2015. Community Profile: Arlington County. Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Employment Commission. 2015. Community Profile: Caroline County. Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Employment Commission. 2015. Community Profile: Chesterfield County. Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Employment Commission. 2015. Community Profile: City of Alexandria. Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Employment Commission. 2015. Community Profile: City of Fredericksburg. 

Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Employment Commission. 2015. Community Profile: City of Richmond. Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Employment Commission. 2015. Community Profile: Fairfax County. Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Employment Commission. 2015. Community Profile: Hanover County. Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Employment Commission. 2015. Community Profile: Henrico County. Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Employment Commission. 2015. Community Profile: Prince William County. 

Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Employment Commission. 2015. Community Profile: Richmond MSA. Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Employment Commission. 2015. Community Profile: Spotsylvania County. 

Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Employment Commission. 2015. Community Profile: Stafford County. Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Employment Commission. 2015. Community Profile: Washington-Arlington-Alexandria 

MSA (VA Part). Richmond, VA. 

Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. 2012. Total Population Projections for Virginia and its 

Localities. Charlottesville, VA. 

Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, Public Service Demographics Research Group. 2016. 

July 1, 2015 Population Estimates for Virginia and its Counties and Cities. 

www.coopercenter.org/demographics/. Charlottesville, VA. 

7 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail A-1 Community Impact Assessment 

A EXISTING LAND USE MAPS